Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 610–619 | Cite as

Comparison of hybrid 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT and 99mTc-DPD-SPECT/CT for the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer patients: Additional value of morphologic information from low dose CT

  • Jan-Carlo JanssenEmail author
  • Sebastian Meißner
  • Nadine Woythal
  • Vikas Prasad
  • Winfried Brenner
  • Gerd Diederichs
  • Bernd Hamm
  • Marcus R. Makowski
Molecular Imaging

Abstract

Purpose

This study compared 68Gallium-prostate-specific-membrane-antigen based Positron-emission-tomography (68Ga-PSMA-PET) and 99metastabletechnetium-3,3-diphospho-1,2-propanedicarbonacid (99mTc-DPD-SPECT) in performing skeletal staging in prostate cancer (PC) patients and evaluated the additional value of the information from low-dose-computed tomography (CT).

Materials and Methods

In this retrospective study, 54 patients who received 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT and 99mTc-DPD-SPECT/CT within 80 days were extracted from our database. Osseous lesions were classified as benign, malignant or equivocal. Lesion, region and patient based analysis was performed with and without CT fusion. The reference standard was generated by defining a best valuable comparator (BVC) containing information from all available data.

Results

In the patient based analysis, accuracies measured as “area-under-the-curve” (AUC) for 68Ga-PSMA-PET, 99mTc-SPECT, 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT and 99mTc-SPECT/CT were 0.97-0.96, 0.86-0.83, 1.00 and 0.83, respectively (p<0.05) (ranges = optimistic vs. pessimistic view). Region based analysis resulted in the following sensitivities and specificities: 91.8-97.7%, 100-99.5% (PET); 61.2-70.6%, 99.8-98.3% (SPECT); 97.7%, 100% (PET/CT), 69.4% and 98.3% (SPECT/CT) (p<0.05). The amount of correct classifications of equivocal lesions by CT was significantly higher in PET (100%) compared to SPECT (52.4%) (p<0.05).

Conclusion

68Ga-PSMA-PET outperforms 99mTc-DPD-SPECT in detecting bone metastases in PC patients. Additional information from low-dose-CT resulted in a significant reduction in equivocal lesions in both modalities, however 68Ga-PSMA-PET benefited most.

Key Points

Ga-PSMA-PET outperforms 99m Tc-DPD-SPECT in skeletal staging in prostate cancer patients

Proportion of equivocal decisions was significantly reduced by CT-fusion in both modalities

Ga-PSMA-PET benefits more from CT information, compared to 99m Tc-DPD-SPECT

Keywords

Prostatic neoplasms Positron emission tomography computed tomography Single photon emission computed tomography Neoplasm metastasis Bone tissue PSMA 

Abbreviations

PET

Positron emission tomography

SPECT

Single photon emission computed tomography

CT

computed tomography

BVC

best valuable comparator

BS

Bone scan

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

PC

Prostate cancer

Tc-DPD

99-technetium-3,3-Diphospho-1,2-propanedicarbonacid

PSMA

Prostate specific membrane antigen

Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC

prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligand (Glu-NH-CO-NH-Lys) radio-labelled with 68Gallium-N,N-bis[2-hydroxy-5-(carboxyethyl)benzyl] ethylenediamine-N,N diacetic acid

Ga-PSMA-PET

68Gallium prostate-specific-membrane-antigen based positron-emission-tomography

DPD

Diphospho-1,2-propanedicarbonacid

PACS

Picture archiving and communication system

CI

confidence interval

PSA

prostate specific antigen

AUC

Area under the curve

ROC

Receiver operating characteristics

HU

Hounsfield unit

2D

two dimensional

3D

three dimensional

MIP

maximum intensity projection

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author MM is grateful for the financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, 5943/31/41/91).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jan-Carlo Janssen.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Hamm declares a relationship with the following companies, including: GE, Guerbet, Siemens, Samsung und Toshiba.

In addition to the author Hamm, no other author has a conflict of interest.

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Statistics and biometry

Daniel Schulze kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Informed consent

In this retrospective study, written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66:7–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bubendorf L, Schopfer A, Wagner U et al (2000) Metastatic patterns of prostate cancer: an autopsy study of 1,589 patients. Hum Pathol 31:578–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carlin BI, Andriole GL (2000) The natural history, skeletal complications, and management of bone metastases in patients with prostate carcinoma. Cancer 88:2989–2994CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rigaud J, Tiguert R, Le Normand L et al (2002) Prognostic value of bone scan in patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated initially with androgen deprivation therapy. J Urol 168:1423–1426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J et al (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65:124–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mohler JL, Kantoff PW, Armstrong AJ et al (2014) Prostate cancer, version 2.2014. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 12:686–718CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G et al (2007) Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 177:2106–2131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, Lievshitz G, Lerman H, Leibovitch I (2006) 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 47:287–297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schirrmeister H, Glatting G, Hetzel J et al (2001) 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 42:1800–1804PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Apostolova I, Golcuk E, Bohuslavizki KH, Buchert R, Brenner W (2009) Impact of additional SPECT in bone scanning in tumor patients with suspected metastatic bone disease. Ann Nucl Med 23:869–875CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eder M, Neels O, Muller M et al (2014) Novel Preclinical and Radiopharmaceutical Aspects of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC: A New PET Tracer for Imaging of Prostate Cancer. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 7:779–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Malcher A, Eder M et al (2013) PET imaging with a [68Ga]gallium-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: biodistribution in humans and first evaluation of tumour lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:486–495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eder M, Schafer M, Bauder-Wust U et al (2012) 68Ga-complex lipophilicity and the targeting property of a urea-based PSMA inhibitor for PET imaging. Bioconjug Chem 23:688–697CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M et al (2015) Evaluation of Hybrid (6)(8)Ga-PSMA Ligand PET/CT in 248 Patients with Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy. J Nucl Med 56:668–674CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I et al (2016) Diagnostic Efficacy of (68)Gallium-PSMA Positron Emission Tomography Compared to Conventional Imaging for Lymph Node Staging of 130 Consecutive Patients with Intermediate to High Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol 195:1436–1443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Avtzi E, Giesel FL et al (2015) 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 42:197–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rowe SP, Gorin MA, Allaf ME et al (2016) PET imaging of prostate-specific membrane antigen in prostate cancer: current state of the art and future challenges. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 19:223–230CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pyka T, Okamoto S, Dahlbender M et al (2016) Comparison of bone scintigraphy and 68Ga-PSMA PET for skeletal staging in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:2114–2121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dietlein M, Kobe C, Kuhnert G et al (2015) Comparison of [(18)F]DCFPyL and [ (68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC for PSMA-PET Imaging in Patients with Relapsed Prostate Cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 17:575–584CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME, Perkins AE, Kolthammer J, Karp JS (2007) Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med 48:471–480PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lecouvet FE, El Mouedden J, Collette L et al (2012) 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 62:68–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Woo S, Kim SY, Kim SH, Cho JY (2016) JOURNAL CLUB: Identification of Bone Metastasis With Routine Prostate MRI: A Study of Patients With Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:1156–1163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Richardson JT (2011) The analysis of 2 x 2 contingency tables--yet again. Stat Med 30:890, author reply 891-892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Campbell I (2007) Chi-squared and Fisher-Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small sample recommendations. Stat Med 26:3661–3675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jambor I, Kuisma A, Ramadan S et al (2016) 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 55:59–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shen G, Deng H, Hu S, Jia Z (2014) Comparison of choline-PET/CT, MRI, SPECT, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Skeletal Radiol 43:1503–1513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Zechmann CM (2012) [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 39:1085–1086CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Francis MDHP, Tofe AJ (1981) Controversial mechanism of technetium-99m deposition on bone. J Nucl Med 22:72Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jones AG, Francis MD, Davis MA (1976) Bone scanning: radionuclidic reaction mechanisms. Semin Nucl Med 6:3–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Eder M, Eisenhut M, Babich J, Haberkorn U (2013) PSMA as a target for radiolabelled small molecules. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:819–823CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Blazak JK, Thomas P (2016) Paget Disease: A Potential Pitfall in PSMA PET for Prostate Cancer. Clin Nucl Med 41:699–700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sasikumar A, Joy A, Pillai MR, Raman V, Vasudevan A, Madhavan J (2017) A rare case of rectal carcinoma and prostate carcinoma with coexistent Paget's disease mimicking bone metastases in both 18F-FDG and 68Ga PSMA PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lecouvet FE, Geukens D, Stainier A et al (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton for detecting bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: diagnostic and cost-effectiveness and comparison with current detection strategies. J Clin Oncol 25:3281–3287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pasoglou V, Larbi A, Collette L et al (2014) One-step TNM staging of high-risk prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): toward an upfront simplified "all-in-one" imaging approach? Prostate 74:469–477CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCharitéBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineCharitéBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations