Advertisement

Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

, Volume 52, Issue 6, pp 420–429 | Cite as

Evaluation of RECIST, PERCIST, EORTC, and MDA Criteria for Assessing Treatment Response with Ga68-PSMA PET-CT in Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patient with Biochemical Progression: a Comparative Study

  • Manoj GuptaEmail author
  • Partha Sarathi Choudhury
  • Sudhir Rawal
  • Harish Chandra Goel
  • S. Avinash Rao
Original Article
  • 141 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to compare response evaluation criteria in solid tumours 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), positron emission tomography response criteria in solid tumours (PERCIST), European organisation for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC), and MD Anderson (MDA) criteria for response assessment by Gallium 68-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography (Ga68-PSMA PET-CT) in metastatic adenocarcinoma prostate cancer (mPCa) patients with biochemical progression.

Methods

Eighty-eight mPCa patients with pre and post treatment Ga68-PSMA PET-CT were included. A ≥ 25% increase and ≥ 2 ng/ml above the nadir if prostate specific antigen (PSA) drop or ≥ 2 ng/ml above the baseline if PSA does not drop was considered as biochemical progression. RECIST 1.1 and MDA criteria for morphology and PERCIST and EORTC criteria for molecular response were investigated. Percentages of progressive disease (PD), partial response (PR), and stable disease (SD) were calculated. Chi-square test was used for statistical significance.

Results

Proportion of PD, SD, and PR by RECIST 1.1 and MDA criteria were 44 (50.57%), 39 (44.83%), 4 (4.6%), and 33 (39.76%), 48 (57.83%), 2 (2.41%) respectively. Proportion of PD, SD, and PR by PERCIST and EORTC criteria were 71 (80.68%), 11 (12.50%), 6 (6.82%), and 74 (84.09%), 8 (9.09%), 6 (6.82%) respectively. Chi-square test showed statistically significant (P < 0.05) higher proportion of progression detected by both molecular criteria as compare to both morphological criteria.

Conclusion

We concluded that for Ga68-PSMA PET-CT response evaluation, molecular criteria performed better than morphological criteria in mPCa patient with PSA progression.

Keywords

RECIST 1.1 PERCIST EORTC MDA 68Ga-PSMA PET-CT Response assessment 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Manoj Gupta, Partha Sarathi Choudhury, Harish Chandra Goel, S Avinash Rao, and Sudhir Rawal declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

The institutional review board waived the need to obtain informed consent for this retrospective study.

Supplementary material

13139_2018_548_MOESM1_ESM.docx (33 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 33 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Curran SD, Muellner AU, Schwartz LH. Imaging response assessment in oncology. Cancer Imaging. 2006;6:S126–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carnaghi C, Sclafani F, Basilico V, Doherty M. Response assessment in oncology: limitations of anatomic response criteria in the era of tailored treatments. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;55:589–602.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M, Beer AJ, Wester HJ, et al. Evaluation of hybrid 68Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:668–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perera M, Papa N, Christidis D, Hofman MS, Bolton D, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70:926–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gupta M, Choudhury PS, Hazarika D, Rawal S. A comparative study of 68Gallium-prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for lymph node staging in high risk prostate cancer patients: an initial experience. World J Nucl Med. 2017;16:186–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hruby G, Eade T, Emmett L, Ho B, Hsiao E, Schembri G, et al. 68 Ga-PSMA-PET/CT staging prior to definitive radiation treatment for prostate cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.12872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scher HI, Morris MJ, Stadler WM, et al. Trial design and objectives for castration-resistant prostate cancer: updated recommendations from the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1402–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amor-Coarasa A, Schoendorf M, Meckel M, Vallabhajosula S, Babich JW. Comprehensive quality control of the ITG 68Ge/68Ga generator and synthesis of 68Ga-DOTATOC and 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC for clinical imaging. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1402–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fendler WP, Eiber M, Beheshti M, Bomanji J, Ceci F, Cho S, et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT: joint EANM and SNMMI procedure guideline for prostate cancer imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1014–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rigaud J, Tiguert R, Le Normand L, Karam G, Glemain P, Buzelin JM, et al. Prognostic value of bone scan in patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated initially with androgen deprivation therapy. J Urol. 2002;168:1423–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soloway MS, Hardeman SW, Hickey D, aymond J, Todd B, Soloway S, et al. Stratification of patients with metastatic prostate cancer based on extent of disease on initial bone scan. Cancer. 1988;61:195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Costelloe CM, Chuang HH, Madewell JE, Ueno NT. Cancer response criteria and bone metastases: RECIST 1.1, MDA and PERCIST. J Cancer. 2010;1:80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Torre LA, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends-an update. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2016;25:16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sridhar SS, Freedland SJ, Gleave ME, Higano C, Mulders P, Parker C, et al. Castration-resistant prostate cancer: from new pathophysiology to new treatment. Eur Urol. 2014;65:289–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Emmenegger U, Ko Y-J. PSA-based treatment response criteria in castration-resistant prostate cancer: promises and limitations. Can Urol Assoc J. 2009;3:375–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bronsert P, Reichel K, Ruf J. Loss of PSMA expression in non-neuroendocrine dedifferentiated acinar prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2018;43:526–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seitz AK, Rauscher I, Haller B, Krönke M, Luther S, Heck MM, et al. Preliminary results on response assessment using (68)Ga-HBED-CC-PSMA PET/CT in patients with metastatic prostate cancer undergoing docetaxel chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;45:602–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zschaeck S, Wust P, Beck M, Wlodarczyk W, Kaul D, Rogasch J, et al. Intermediate-term outcome after PSMA-PET guided high-dose radiotherapy of recurrent high-risk prostate cancer patients. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12:140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Giorgi U, Caroli P, Burgio SL, Menna C, Conteduca V, Bianchi E, et al. Early outcome prediction on 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with abiraterone. Oncotarget. 2014;5:12448–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Giorgi U, Caroli P, Scarpi E, Conteduca V, Burgio SL, Menna C, et al. (18)F-Fluorocholine PET/CT for early response assessment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1276–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schwarzenböck SM, Eiber M, Kundt G, Retz M, Sakretz M, Kurth J, et al. Prospective evaluation of [11C]choline PET/CT in therapy response assessment of standardized docetaxel first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced castration refractory prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:2105–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineRajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research CentreDelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Uro - Gynae Surgical OncologyRajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research CentreDelhiIndia
  3. 3.Amity Centre for Radiation BiologyAmity UniversityNoidaIndia
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyRajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research CentreDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations