nach oben

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Erschienen in:

16.05.2018 | Original Article

Comparison of [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT with [¹⁸F]NaF PET/CT in the evaluation of bone metastases in metastatic prostate cancer patients prior to radionuclide therapy

verfasst von: Christian Uprimny, Anna Svirydenka, Josef Fritz, Alexander Stephan Kroiss, Bernhard Nilica, Clemens Decristoforo, Roland Haubner, Elisabeth von Guggenberg, Sabine Buxbaum, Wolfgang Horninger, Irene Johanna Virgolini

Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Ausgabe 11/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Aim

The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in the evaluation of bone metastases in metastatic prostate cancer (PC) patients scheduled for radionuclide therapy in comparison to [¹⁸F]sodium fluoride (¹⁸F-NaF) PET/CT.

Methods

Sixteen metastatic PC patients with known skeletal metastases, who underwent both ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and ¹⁸F-NaF PET/CT for assessment of metastatic burden prior to radionuclide therapy, were analysed retrospectively. The performance of both tracers was calculated on a lesion-based comparison. Intensity of tracer accumulation of pathologic bone lesions on ¹⁸F-NaF PET and ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET was measured with maximum standardized uptake values (SUV_max) and compared to background activity of normal bone. In addition, SUV_max values of PET-positive bone lesions were analysed with respect to morphologic characteristics on CT. Bone metastases were either confirmed by CT or follow-up PET scan.

Results

In contrast to 468 PET-positive lesions suggestive of bone metastases on ¹⁸F-NaF PET, only 351 of the lesions were also judged positive on ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET (75.0%). Intensity of tracer accumulation of pathologic skeletal lesions was significantly higher on ¹⁸F-NaF PET compared to ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET, showing a median SUV_max of 27.0 and 6.0, respectively (p < 0.001). Background activity of normal bone was lower on ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET, with a median SUV_max of 1.0 in comparison to 2.7 on ¹⁸F-NaF PET; however, tumour to background ratio was significantly higher on ¹⁸F-NaF PET (9.8 versus 5.9 on ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET; p = 0.042). Based on morphologic lesion characterisation on CT, ¹⁸F-NaF PET revealed median SUV_max values of 23.6 for osteosclerotic, 35.0 for osteolytic, and 19.0 for lesions not visible on CT, whereas on ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET median SUV_max values of 5.0 in osteosclerotic, 29.5 in osteolytic, and 7.5 in lesions not seen on CT were measured. Intensity of tracer accumulation between¹⁸F-NaF PET and ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET was significantly higher in osteosclerotic (p < 0.001) and lesions not visible on CT (p = 0.012).

Conclusion

In comparison to ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, ¹⁸F-NaF PET/CT detects a higher number of pathologic bone lesions in advanced stage PC patients scheduled for radionuclide therapy. Our data suggest that ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET should be combined with ¹⁸F-NaF PET in PC patients with skeletal metastases for restaging prior to initiation or modification of therapy.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Arnold M, Karim-Kos HE, Coebergh JW, Byrnes G, Antilla A, Ferlay J, et al. Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: Analysis of the European Cancer Observatory. Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: Analysis of the European Cancer Observatory. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(9):1164–87.CrossRefPubMed

Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, Ward E, Ferlay J, Brawley O, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1079–92.

Bubendorf L, Schöpfer 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.CrossRefPubMed

Coleman RE. Metastatic bone disease: clinical features, pathophysiology and treatment strategies. Cancer Treat Rev. 2001;27(3):165–76.CrossRefPubMed

Nørgaard M, Jensen AØ, Jacobsen JB, Cetin K, Fryzek JP, Sørensen HT. Skeletal related events, bone metastasis and survival of prostate cancer: a population based cohort study in Denmark (1999 to 2007). J Urol. 2010;184(1):162–7.CrossRefPubMed

Saad F, Clarke N, Colombel M. Natural history and treatment of bone complications in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2006;49(3):429–40.CrossRefPubMed

Tait C, Moore D, Hodgson C, Brown M, Morris T, Growcott J, et al. Quantification of skeletal metastases in castrate-resistant prostate cancer predicts progression-free and overall survival. BJU Int. 2014;114(6b):E70–3.CrossRefPubMed

Handkiewicz-Junak D, Poeppel TD, Bodei L, Aktolun C, Ezziddin S, Giammarile F, et al. EANM guidelines for radionuclide therapy of bone metastases with beta-emitting radionuclides. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(5):846–59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Cornford P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, De Santis M, Gross T, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer. part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):630–42.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Virgolini I, Decristoforo C, Haug A, Fanti S, Uprimny C. Current status of theranostics in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017.

11.

von Eyben FE, Roviello G, Kiljunen T, Uprimny C, Virgolini I, Kairemo K, et al. Third-line treatment and ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017.

12.

Poeppel TD, Handkiewicz-Junak D, Andreeff M, Becherer A, Bockisch A, Fricke E, et al. EANM guideline for radionuclide therapy with radium-223 of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017.

13.

Evangelista L, Bertoldo F, Boccardo F, Conti G, Menchi I, Mungai F, et al. Diagnostic imaging to detect and evaluate response to therapy in bone metastases from prostate cancer: current modalities and new horizons. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1546–62.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–29.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Beheshti M, Rezaee A, Geinitz H, Loidl W, Pirich C, Langsteger W. Evaluation of prostate cancer bone metastases with 18F-NaF and 18F-Fluorocholine PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:55S–60S.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Cook GJ, Azad G, Padhani AR. Bone imaging in prostate cancer: the evolving roles of nuclear medicine and radiology. Can J Urol. 2016;23(6):8564–7.PubMed

17.

Langsteger W, Rezaee A, Pirich C, Beheshti M. 18F-NaF-PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2016;46(6):491–501.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Schirrmeister H, Glatting G, Hetzel J, Nüssle 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.PubMed

19.

Schirrmeister H, Guhlmann A, Elsner K, Kotzerke J, Glatting G, Rentschler M, et al. Sensitivity in detecting osseous lesions depends on anatomic localization: planar bone scintigraphy versus 18F PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40(10):1623–9.PubMed

20.

Beheshti M, Vali R, Waldenberger P, Fitz F, Nader M, Hammer J, et al. The use of F-18 choline PET in the assessment of bone metastases in prostate cancer: correlation with morphological changes on CT. Mol Imaging Biol. 2010;12(1):98–107.

21.

Afshar-Oromieh A, Malcher A, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Linhart HG, Hadaschik BA, et al. 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. 2013;40(6):971–2.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Afshar-Oromieh A, Holland-Letz T, Giesel FL, Kratochwil C, Mier W, Haufe S, et al. Diagnostic performance of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: evaluation in 1007 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(8):1258–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Schwarzenbock SM, Rauscher I, Bluemel C, Fendler WP, Rowe SP, Pomper MG, et al. PSMA ligands for PET-imaging of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(10):1545–1552 https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.191031.

24.

Schwenck J, Rempp H, Reischl G, Kruck S, Stenzl A, Nikolaou K, et al. Comparison of 68Ga-labelled PSMA-11 and 11C-choline in the detection of prostate cancer metastases by PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017;44(1):92–101.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Morigi JJ, Stricker PD, van Leeuwen PJ, Tang R, Ho B, Nguyen Q, et al. Prospective comparison of 18F-Fluoromethylcholine versus 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer patients who have rising PSA after curative treatment and are being considered for targeted therapy. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(8):1185–90.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Afshar-Oromieh A, Zechmann CM, Malcher A, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Linhart HG, et al. Comparison of PET imaging with a (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and (18)F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(1):11–20.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M, Beer AJ, Ruffani A, Haller B, et al. Evaluation of hybrid ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(5):668–74.CrossRefPubMed

28.

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(8):1284–94.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Uprimny C, Kroiss AS, Decristoforo C, Fritz J, von Guggenberg E, Kendler D, et al. 68Ga-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(6):941-949CrossRefPubMed

30.

Janssen JC, Meißner S, Woythal N, Prasad V, Brenner W, Diederichs G, et al. 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. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(2):610-619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4994-6.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Pyka T, Okamoto S, Dahlbender M, Tauber R, Retz M, Heck M, et al. Comparison of bone scintigraphy and ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET for skeletal staging in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Nov;43(12):2114–21.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Uprimny C, Kroiss A, Nilica B, Buxbaum S, Decristoforo C, Horninger W, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA ligand PET versus (18)F-NaF PET: evaluation of response to (223)Ra therapy in a prostate cancer patient. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(2):362–3.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Uprimny C, Kroiss AS, Decristoforo C, Fritz J, Warwitz B, Scarpa L, et al. Early dynamic imaging in ⁶⁸Ga- PSMA-11 PET/CT allows discrimination of urinary bladder activity and prostate cancer lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(5):765–75.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Segall G, Delbeke D, Stabin MG, Even-Sapir E, Fair J, Sajdak R, et al. SNM. SNM practice guideline for sodium 18F-fluoride PET/CT bone scans 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(11):1813–20.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Durkalski VL, Palesch YY, Lipsitz SR, Rust PF. Analysis of clustered matched-pair data. Stat Med. 2003;22(15):2417–28.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Rosner B, Glynn RJ, Lee ML. The Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired comparisons of clustered data. Biometrics. 2006;62(1):185–92.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Perera M, Papa N, Christidis D, Wetherell D, Hofman MS, Murphy DG, 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(6):926–37.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Araz M, Aras G, Küçük ÖN. The role of 18F-NaF PET/CT in metastatic bone disease. J Bone Oncol. 2015;4(3):92–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Even-Sapir E, Mishani E, Flusser G, Metser U. 18F-fluoride positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Semin Nucl Med. 2007 Nov;37(6):462–9.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Etchebehere EC, Araujo JC, Fox PS, Swanston NM, Macapinlac HA, Rohren EM. Prognostic factors in patients treated with 223Ra: the role of skeletal tumor burden on baseline 18F-fluoride PET/CT in predicting overall survival. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(8):1177–84.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Ibrahim T, Flamini E, Mercatali L, Sacanna E, Serra P, Amadori D. Pathogenesis of osteoblastic bone metastases from prostate cancer. Cancer. 2010;116(6):1406–18.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Janssen JC, Woythal N, Meißner S, Prasad V, Brenner W, Diederichs G, et al. [68Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC uptake in osteolytic, osteoblastic, and bone marrow metastases of prostate cancer patients. Mol Imaging Biol. 2017;19(6):933–43.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Yang HL, Liu T, Wang XM, Xu Y, Deng SM. Diagnosis of bone metastases: a meta-analysis comparing ¹⁸FDG PET, CT, MRI and bone scintigraphy. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(12):2604–17.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Jin JK, Dayyani F, Gallick GE. Steps in prostate cancer progression that lead to bone metastasis. Int J Cancer. 2011;128(11):2545–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Keller ET, Brown J. Prostate cancer bone metastases promote both osteolytic and osteoblastic activity. J Cell Biochem. 2004;91(4):718–29. ReviewCrossRefPubMed

46.

Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007 Jun;48(6):932–45.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Moses WW. Fundamental Limits of spatial resolution in PET. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2011;648(Supplement 1):S236–40.

48.

Sánchez-Crespo A, Andreo P, Larsson SA. Positron flight in human tissues and its influence on PET image spatial resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31(1):44–51.CrossRefPubMed

49.

van Schelven WD, Pauwels EK. The flare phenomenon: far from fair and square. Eur J Nucl Med. 1994;21(5):377–80.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Rossleigh MA, Lovegrove FT, Reynolds PM, Byrne MJ. Serial bone scans in the assessment of response to therapy in advanced breast carcinoma. Clin Nucl Med. 1982;7(9):397–402.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Coleman RE, Mashiter G, Whitaker KB, Moss DW, Rubens RD, Fogelman I. Bone scan flare predicts successful systemic therapy for bone metastases. J Nucl Med. 1988;29(8):1354–9.PubMed

52.

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.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Sundkvist GM, Ahlgren L, Lilja B, Mattsson S, Abrahamsson PA, Wadström LB. Repeated quantitative bone scintigraphy in patients with prostatic carcinoma treated with orchiectomy. Eur J Nucl Med. 1988;14(4):203–6.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Sundkvist GM, Björk T, Kjellström H, Lilja B. Quantitative bone scintigraphy in patients with prostatic carcinoma treated with LH-RH analogues. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1996;30(1):29–32.CrossRefPubMed

55.

World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2000;284:3043–5.CrossRef

Titel: Comparison of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT with [18F]NaF PET/CT in the evaluation of bone metastases in metastatic prostate cancer patients prior to radionuclide therapy
verfasst von: Christian Uprimny
Anna Svirydenka
Josef Fritz
Alexander Stephan Kroiss
Bernhard Nilica
Clemens Decristoforo
Roland Haubner
Elisabeth von Guggenberg
Sabine Buxbaum
Wolfgang Horninger
Irene Johanna Virgolini
Publikationsdatum: 16.05.2018
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Ausgabe 11/2018
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4048-6

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2018

A rare presentation of skull-base osteomyelitis with neurovascular sheath extension following external otitis resolved by PET/MRI

Guidelines on nuclear medicine imaging in neuroblastoma

Risk-related 18F-FDG PET/CT and new diagnostic strategies in patients with solitary pulmonary nodule: the ITALIAN multicenter trial

Imaging of chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in culprit and nonculprit coronary atherosclerotic plaque using motion-corrected [68Ga]pentixafor PET/CT

Ferdinando Calabria and Orazio Schillaci (Eds). Radiopharmaceuticals. Metabolic Pathways for PET/CT and PET/MRI Imaging

The best of both worlds: a hybrid approach for optimal pre- and intraoperative identification of sentinel lymph nodes