Abstract
Purpose
The aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET and 99mTc bone scintigraphy (BS) for the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer (PC) patients.
Methods
One hundred twenty-six patients who received planar BS and PSMA PET within three months and without change of therapy were extracted from our database. Bone lesions were categorized into benign, metastatic, or equivocal by two experienced observers. A best valuable comparator (BVC) was defined based on BS, PET, additional imaging, and follow-up data. The cohort was further divided into clinical subgroups (primary staging, biochemical recurrence, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [mCRPC]). Additionally, subgroups of patients with less than 30 days delay between the two imaging procedures and with additional single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) were analyzed.
Results
A total of 75 of 126 patients were diagnosed with bone metastases. Sensitivities and specificities regarding overall bone involvement were 98.7–100 % and 88.2–100 % for PET, and 86.7–89.3 % and 60.8–96.1 % (p < 0.001) for BS, with ranges representing results for ‘optimistic’ or ‘pessimistic’ classification of equivocal lesions. Out of 1115 examined bone regions, 410 showed metastases. Region-based analysis revealed a sensitivity and specificity of 98.8–99.0 % and 98.9–100 % for PET, and 82.4–86.6 % and 91.6–97.9 % (p < 0.001) for BS, respectively. PSMA PET also performed better in all subgroups, except patient-based analysis in mCRPC.
Conclusion
Ga-PSMA PET outperforms planar BS for the detection of affected bone regions as well as determination of overall bone involvement in PC patients. Our results indicate that BS in patients who have received PSMA PET for staging only rarely offers additional information; however, prospective studies, including a standardized integrated x-ray computed tomography (SPECT/CT) protocol, should be performed in order to confirm the presented results.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Even-Sapir E. Imaging of malignant bone involvement by morphologic, scintigraphic, and hybrid modalities. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(8):1356–67.
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(5):578–83.
Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, BuRnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS, et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol. 2007;177(6):2106–31.
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):124–37.
Mohler JL, Kantoff PW, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, Cohen M, D’Amico AV, et al. Prostate cancer, version 2.2014. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014;12(5):686–718.
Jacobson AF, Fogelman I. Bone scanning in clinical oncology: does it have a future? Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;25(9):1219–23.
Schirrmeister H, Glatting G, Hetzel J, Nussle K, Arslandemir C, Buck AK, et al. Prospective evaluation of the clinical value of planar bone scans, SPECT, and (18)F-labeled NaF PET in newly diagnosed lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(12):1800–4.
Lee N, Fawaaz R, Olsson CA, Benson MC, Petrylak DP, Schiff PB, et al. Which patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer need a radionuclide bone scan? an analysis based on 631 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48(5):1443–6.
Picchio M, Spinapolice EG, Fallanca F, Crivellaro C, Giovacchini G, Gianolli L, et al. [11C]Choline PET/CT detection of bone metastases in patients with PSA progression after primary treatment for prostate cancer: comparison with bone scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(1):13–26.
Lecouvet FE, El Mouedden J, Collette L, Coche E, Danse E, Jamar F, et al. Can whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging replace Tc 99m bone scanning and computed tomography for single-step detection of metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer? Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):68–75.
Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, Lievshitz G, Lerman H, Leibovitch I. The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP Planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(2):287–97.
Eder M, Schafer M, Bauder-Wust U, Hull WE, Wangler C, Mier W, et al. 68Ga-complex lipophilicity and the targeting property of a urea-based PSMA inhibitor for PET imaging. Bioconjug Chem. 2012;23(4):688–97.
Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Zechmann CM. [68Ga]Gallium-labelled PSMA ligand as superior PET tracer for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: comparison with 18F-FECH. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(6):1085–6.
Schafer M, Bauder-Wust U, Leotta K, Zoller F, Mier W, Haberkorn U, et al. A dimerized urea-based inhibitor of the prostate-specific membrane antigen for 68Ga-PET imaging of prostate cancer. EJNMMI Res. 2012;2(1):23.
Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I, Souvatzoglou M, Haller B, Weirich G et al. Diagnostic efficacy of 68Gallium-PSMA-PET compared to conventional imaging in lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015 (in press).
Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M, Beer AJ, Ruffani A, Haller B, et al. Evaluation of hybrid (6)(8)Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(5):668–74.
Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Martinez-Moeller A, Furst S, Holzapfel K, Maurer T, et al. PET/MR in prostate cancer: technical aspects and potential diagnostic value. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40 Suppl 1:S79–88.
Utsunomiya D, Shiraishi S, Imuta M, Tomiguchi S, Kawanaka K, Morishita S, et al. Added value of SPECT/CT fusion in assessing suspected bone metastasis: comparison with scintigraphy alone and nonfused scintigraphy and CT. Radiology. 2006;238(1):264–71.
Jambor I, Kuisma A, Ramadan S, Huovinen R, Sandell M, Kajander S, et al. Prospective evaluation of planar bone scintigraphy, SPECT, SPECT/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT and whole body 1.5T MRI, including DWI, for the detection of bone metastases in high risk breast and prostate cancer patients: SKELETA clinical trial. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(1):59–67.
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(2):197–209.
Pyka T, Weirich G, Einspieler I, Maurer T, Theisen J, Hatzichristodoulou G et al. [68Ga]PSMA-HBED PET for differential diagnosis of suspicious lung lesions in patients with prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2015.
Krohn T, Verburg FA, Pufe T, Neuhuber W, Vogg A, Heinzel A, et al. [(68)Ga]PSMA-HBED uptake mimicking lymph node metastasis in coeliac ganglia: an important pitfall in clinical practice. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(2):210–4.
Pollen JJ, Witztum KF, Ashburn WL. The flare phenomenon on radionuclide bone scan in metastatic prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984;142(4):773–6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
This study was supported by funding from the Faculty of Medicine of the Technical University of Munich (grant to TP: KKF B11-14). MS has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Program (FP7) under Grant Agreement No. 294582 ERC Grant MUMI. The development of 68Ga-PSMA synthesis was supported by SFB 824 (Project Z1) from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bonn, Germany. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Program (FP7) under Grant Agreement No. 256984 EndoTOFPET. The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed 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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study as part of the clinical routine. The retrospective analysis was approved by the institutional review board of the Technical University of Munich (permit 5665/13).
Additional information
Tobias Maurer and Matthias Eiber share joint senior authorship
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pyka, T., Okamoto, S., Dahlbender, M. et al. Comparison of bone scintigraphy and 68Ga-PSMA PET for skeletal staging in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43, 2114–2121 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3435-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3435-0