Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 32, Issue 8, pp 542–552 | Cite as

Prognostic value of 68 Ga PSMA I&T PET/CT SUV parameters on survival outcome in advanced prostat cancer

  • Halil KomekEmail author
  • Canan Can
  • Ugur Yilmaz
  • Serdar Altindag
Original Article



To determine the association of 68 Ga-PSMA-I&T PET/CT SUV parameters with survival outcome in advanced prostate cancer patients.


A total of 148 consecutive patients mean age: 69.3 ± 7.8 years with advanced prostate cancer who underwent 68 Ga-PSMA-I&T PET/CT were included in this retrospective study. Data on previous treatments, serum PSA levels (ng/mL), 68 Ga-PSMA-I&T PET/CT findings metastases as well as survival data were recorded.


Multivariate regression analysis revealed that Level 1 LN SUV/Liver SUV ratios > 2.17 (OR 4.262; 95% CI 1.104–16.453, p = 0.035), bone SUV > 10.7(OR 23.650; 95% CI 4.056–137.888, p < 0.001), bone SUV/spleen SUV ratio > 1.842 (OR 25.324; 95% CI 4.204–152.552, p < 0.001), highest SUVmax/liver SUV ratio > 2.32 (OR 19.309; 95% CI 1.730–209.552, p = 0.016) and highest SUVmax/spleen SUV ratio > 1.842 (OR 22.354; 95% CI 2.637–189.493, p = 0.004) were significant in the determination of increased mortality risk in advanced prostate cancer patients.


Our findings, for the first time in literature, provided evidence on potential utility of tracer uptake (SUV) cut-off values on 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT in identification of the survival outcome of patients with metastatic disease and thereby in assisting in the selection of individualized therapeutic strategies tailored to the expected prognosis.


Prostate cancer 68 Ga-PSMA-I&T PET/CT Metastasis Lymph node Bone SUV 



The research was not financially supported by grants or any other kind of funding from any pharmaceutical company or other possible sources. All the authors had an active involvement in data collection and analysis, as well as writing, preparing and reviewing the manuscript.

Author contributions

HK, CC, UY, and SA designed the study, analyzed the data and contributed to the writing of the paper. UY and CC statistically analyzed the data. All authors contributed to the writing of the paper. All the authors accept responsibility for the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.


There is no funding resource supporting the work submitted.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.


  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sabbatini P, Larson SM, Kremer A, et al. Prognostic significance of extent of disease in bone in patients with androgen-independent prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:948–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berruti A, Tucci M, Mosca A, et al. Predictive factors for skeletal complications in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients with metastatic bone disease. Br J Cancer. 2005;93:633–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gandaglia G, Karakiewicz PI, Briganti A, Passoni NM, Schiffmann J, Trudeau V, et al. Impact of the site of metastases on survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:325–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gandaglia G, Abdollah F, Schiffmann J, Trudeau V, Shariat SF, Kim SP, et al. Distribution of metastatic sites in patients with prostate cancer: a population-based analysis. Prostate. 2014;74:210–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kwee SA, Lim J, Watanabe A, Kromer-Baker K, Coel MN. Prognosis related to metastatic burden measured by 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT in castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:905–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jadvar H, Desai B, Ji L, Conti PS, Dorff TB, Groshen SG, et al. Baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters as imaging biomarkers of overall survival in castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1195–201.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wright GL Jr, Haley C, Beckett ML, Schellhammer PF. Expression of prostate-specific membrane antigen in normal, benign, and malignant prostate tissues. Urol Oncol. 1995;1(1):18–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Uprimny C, Kroiss AS, Decristoforo C, Fritz J, von Guggenberg E, Kendler D, et al. 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in primary staging of prostate cancer: PSA and Gleason score predict the intensity of tracer accumulation in the primary tumour. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:941–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCarthy M, Langton T, Kumar D, Campbell A. Comparison of PSMA-HBED and PSMA-I&T as diagnostic agents in prostate carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(9):1455–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berliner C, Tienken M, Frenzel T, Kobayashi Y, Helberg A, Kirchner U, et al. Detection rate of PET/CT in patients with biochemical relapse of prostate cancer using [(68)Ga]PSMA I&T and comparison with published data of [(68)Ga]PSMA HBED-CC. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(4):670–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bluemel C, Krebs M, Polat B, Linke F, Eiber M, Samnick S, et al. 68 Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in patients with biochemical prostate cancer recurrence and negative 18F-choline-PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41(7):515–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Apolo AB, Lindenberg L, Shih JH, Mena E, Kim JW, Park JC, et al. Prospective study evaluating Na18F PET/CT in predicting clinical outcomes and survival in advanced prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:886–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perner S, Hofer MD, Kim R, Shah RB, Li H, Möller P, Hautmann RE, Gschwend JE, Kuefer R, Rubin MA. Prostate-specific membrane antigen expression as a predictor of prostate cancer progression. Hum Pathol. 2007;38(5):696–701 (Epub 2007 Feb 22).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huber F, Montani M, Sulser T, Jaggi R, Wild P, Moch H, Gevensleben H, Schmid M, Wyder S, Kristiansen G. Comprehensive validation of published immunohistochemical prognostic biomarkers of prostate cancer—what has gone wrong? A blueprint for the way forward in biomarker studies. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(1):140–8. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park J, Chang KJ, Seo YS. Tumor SUVmax normalized to liver uptake on (18)F-FDG PET/CT predicts the pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;48:295–302.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hofheinz F, Bütof R, Apostolova I, Zöphel K, Steffen IG, Amthauer H, et al. An investigation of the relation between tumor-to-liver ratio (TLR) and tumor-to-blood standard uptake ratio (SUR) in oncological FDG PET. EJNMMI Res. 2016;6:19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Komek H, Altindag S, Can C, Aguloglu N, Morcali H, Tuzun A, Kavak S. The prognostic value of preoperative PET/CT evaluation of maximum standardized uptake value in renal cell carcinomas. Ann Ital Chir. 2017;88:48–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schulte M, Brecht-Krauss D, Werner M, Hartwig E, et al. Evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy response of osteogenic sarcoma using fdg pet. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1637–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. AJR. 2010;195:310–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sanli Y, Kuyumcu S, Sanli O, Buyukkaya F, İribaş A, Alcin G, et al. Relationships between serum PSA levels, Gleason scores and results of 68 Ga-PSMAPET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2017;31:709–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmuck S, von Klot CA, Henkenberens C, Sohns JM, Christiansen H, Wester HJ, et al. Initial Experience with volumetric 68 Ga-PSMA I&T PET/CT for assessment of whole-body tumor burden as a quantitative imaging biomarker in patients with prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1962–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Avtzi E, Giesel FL, Holland-Letz T, Linhart HG, Eder M, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT imaging with the (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand HBED-CC in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:197–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zacho HD, Nielsen JB, Haberkorn U, Stenholt L, Petersen LJ. 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer: a systematic review of the published literature. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2017. (Epub ahead of print).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sachpekidis C, Bäumer P, Kopka K, Hadaschik BA, Hohenfellner M, Kopp-Schneider A, et al. 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT in the evaluation of bone metastases in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018. (Epub ahead of print).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rauscher I, Maurer T, Fendler WP, Sommer WH, Schwaiger M, Eiber M. (68)Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer: how we review and report. Cancer Imaging. 2016;16:14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I, Souvatzoglou M, Haller B, Weirich G, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of Gallium-PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging in lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;195:1436–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schmuck S, Nordlohne S, von Klot CA, Henkenberens C, Sohns JM, Christiansen H, et al. Comparison of standard and delayed imaging to improve the detection rate of [68Ga]PSMA I&T PET/CT in patients with biochemical recurrence or prostate-specific antigen persistence after primary therapy for prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(6):960–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zang S, Shao G, Cui C, Li TN, Huang Y, Yao X, Maurer T, Weirich G, Schottelius M, Weineisen M, Frisch B, Okur A, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen-radioguided surgery for metastatic lymph nodes in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:530–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bubendorf L, Schopfer A, Wagner U, Sauter G, Moch H, Willi N, et al. Metastatic patterns of prostate cancer: an autopsy study of 1,589 patients. Hum Pathol. 2000;31:578–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Baumann R, Koncz M, Luetzen U, Krause F, Dunst J. Oligometastases in prostate cancer: metabolic response in follow-up PSMA-PET-CTs after hypofractionated IGRT. Strahlenther Onkol. 2018;194:318–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Herlemann A, Kretschmer A, Buchner A. Salvage lymph node dissection after 68 Ga-PSMA or 18F-FEC PET/CT for nodal recurrence in prostate cancer patients. Oncotarget. 2017;8:84180–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ceci F, Uprimny C, Nilica B, Geraldo L, Kendler D, Kroiss A, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT for restaging recurrent prostate cancer: which factors are associated with PET/CT detection rate? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1284–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Koerber SA, Utzinger MT, Kratochwil C, Kesch C, Haefner MF, Katayama S, et al. 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in newly diagnosed carcinoma of the prostate: correlation of intraprostatic PSMA uptake with several clinical parameters. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1943–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ben Jemaa A, Bouraoui Y, Sallami S, Banasr A, Ben Rais N, Ouertani L, et al. Co-expression and impact of prostate specific membrane antigen and prostate specific antigen in prostatic pathologies. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2010;29:171.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Halil Komek
    • 1
    Email author
  • Canan Can
    • 1
  • Ugur Yilmaz
    • 2
  • Serdar Altindag
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineSaglik Bilimleri University Diyarbakir Gazi Yasargil Training and Research HospitalDiyarbakirTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Radiation OncologySaglik Bilimleri University Diyarbakir Gazi Yasargil Training and Research HospitalDiyarbakirTurkey

Personalised recommendations