Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PSMA-Based [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT Is Superior to Conventional Imaging for Lesion Detection in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Molecular Imaging and Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Current standard of care conventional imaging modalities (CIM) such as X-ray computed tomography (CT) and bone scan can be limited for detection of metastatic prostate cancer and therefore improved imaging methods are an unmet clinical need. We evaluated the utility of a novel second-generation low molecular weight radiofluorinated prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted positron emission tomography (PET) radiotracer, [18F]DCFPyL, in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Procedures

Nine patients with suspected prostate cancer recurrence, eight with CIM evidence of metastatic prostate cancer and one with biochemical recurrence, were imaged with [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT. Eight of the patients had contemporaneous CIM for comparison. A lesion-by-lesion comparison of the detection of suspected sites of metastatic prostate cancer was carried out between PET and CIM. Statistical analysis for estimated proportions of inter-modality agreement for detection of metastatic disease was calculated accounting for intra-patient correlation using general estimating equation (GEE) intercept-only regression models.

Results

One hundred thirty-nine sites of PET positive [18F]DCFPyL uptake (138 definite, 1 equivocal) for metastatic disease were detected in the eight patients with available comparison CIM. By contrast, only 45 lesions were identified on CIM (30 definite, 15 equivocal). When lesions were negative or equivocal on CIM, it was estimated that a large portion of these lesions or 0.72 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.55–0.84) would be positive on [18F]DCFPyL PET. Conversely, of those lesions negative or equivocal on [18F]DCFPyL PET, it was estimated that only a very small proportion or 0.03 (95 % CI 0.01–0.07) would be positive on CIM. Delayed 2-h-post-injection time point PET yielded higher tumor radiotracer uptake and higher tumor-to-background ratios than an earlier 1-h-post-injection time point.

Conclusions

A novel PSMA-targeted PET radiotracer, [18F]DCFPyL, was able to a large number of suspected sites of prostate cancer, many of which were occult or equivocal by CIM. This study provides strong preliminary evidence for the use of this second-generation PSMA-targeted PET radiotracer for detection of metastatic prostate cancer and lends further support for the importance of PSMA-targeted PET imaging in prostate cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A (2014) Cancer statistics, 2014. Cancer J Clin 64:9–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jadvar H (2011) Prostate cancer: PET with 18F-FDG, 18F- or 11C-acetate, and 18F- or 11C-choline. J Nucl Med 52:81–89

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bauman G, Belhocine T, Kovacs M, Ward A, Beheshti M, Rachinsky I (2012) 18F-fluorocholine for prostate cancer imaging: a systematic review of the literature. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 15:45–55

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Beheshti M, Treglia G, Zakavi SR et al (2013) Application of 11C-acetate positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging in prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Br J Urol Int. doi:10.1111/bju.12279

    Google Scholar 

  5. Evangelista L, Guttilla A, Zattoni F, Muzzio PC (2013) Utility of choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for lymph node involvement identification in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 63:1040–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Evangelista L, Zattoni F, Guttilla A, Saladini G, Colletti PM, Rubello D (2013) Choline PET or PET/CT and biochemical relapse of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med 38:305–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fuccio C, Rubello D, Castellucci P, Marzola MC, Fanti S (2011) Choline PET/CT for prostate cancer: main clinical applications. Eur J Radiol 80:e50–e56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mertens K, Slaets D, Lambert B, Acou M, De Vos F, Goethals I (2010) PET with (18)F-labelled choline-based tracers for tumour imaging: a review of the literature. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:2188–2193

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Umbehr MH, Muntener M, Hany T, Sulser T, Bachmann LM (2013) The role of 11C-choline and 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/CT in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 64:106–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schuster DM, Votaw JR, Nieh PT et al (2007) Initial experience with the radiotracer anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid with PET/CT in prostate carcinoma. J Nucl Med 48:56–63

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schuster DM, Savir-Baruch B, Nieh PT et al (2011) Detection of recurrent prostate carcinoma with anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid PET/CT and 111In-capromab pendetide SPECT/CT. Radiology 259:852–861

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Wieser G, Mansi R, Grosu AL et al (2014) Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of prostate cancer with a gastrin releasing peptide receptor antagonist—from mice to men. Theranostics 4:412–419

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Sah BR, Burger IA, Schibli R et al (2015) Dosimetry and first clinical evaluation of the new 18F-radiolabeled bombesin analogue BAY 864367 in patients with prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 56:372–378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Venneti S, Dunphy MP, Zhang H et al (2015) Glutamine-based PET imaging facilitates enhanced metabolic evaluation of gliomas in vivo. Sci Transl Med 7:274ra17

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Huang C, McConathy J (2013) Fluorine-18 labeled amino acids for oncologic imaging with positron emission tomography. Curr Top Med Chem 13:871–891

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cho SY, Gage KL, Mease RC et al (2012) Biodistribution, tumor detection, and radiation dosimetry of 18F-DCFBC, a low-molecular-weight inhibitor of prostate-specific membrane antigen, in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 53:1883–1891

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Szabo Z, Mena E, Rowe SP et al (2015) Initial evaluation of [18F]DCFPyL for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET imaging of prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 17:565–574

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 40:486–495

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Viola-Villegas NT, Sevak KK, Carlin SD et al (2014) Noninvasive imaging of PSMA in prostate tumors with (89)Zr-labeled huJ591 engineered antibody fragments: the faster alternatives. Mol Pharm 11:3965–3973

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Osborne JR, Green DA, Spratt DE et al (2014) A prospective pilot study of (89)Zr-J591/prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in men with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. J Urol 191:1439–1445

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Pandit-Taskar N, O’Donoghue JA, Beylergil V et al (2014) (8)(9)Zr-huJ591 immuno-PET imaging in patients with advanced metastatic prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:2093–2105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Afshar-Oromieh A, Hetzheim H, Kratochwil C et al (2015) The novel theranostic PSMA-ligand PSMA-617 in the diagnosis of prostate cancer by PET/CT: biodistribution in humans, radiation dosimetry and first evaluation of tumor lesions. J Nucl Med 56:1697–1705

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Foss CA, Mease RC, Cho SY, Kim HJ, Pomper MG (2012) GCPII imaging and cancer. Curr Med Chem 19:1346–1359

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Chang SS (2004) Overview of prostate-specific membrane antigen. Rev Urol 6(Suppl 10):S13–S18

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Wright GL Jr, Grob BM, Haley C et al (1996) Upregulation of prostate-specific membrane antigen after androgen-deprivation therapy. Urology 48:326–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Evans MJ, Smith-Jones PM, Wongvipat J et al (2011) Noninvasive measurement of androgen receptor signaling with a positron-emitting radiopharmaceutical that targets prostate-specific membrane antigen. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:9578–9582

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Noss KR, Wolfe SA, Grimes SR (2002) Upregulation of prostate specific membrane antigen/folate hydrolase transcription by an enhancer. Gene 285:247–256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Perner S, Hofer MD, Kim R et al (2007) Prostate-specific membrane antigen expression as a predictor of prostate cancer progression. Hum Pathol 38:696–701

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ross JS, Sheehan CE, Fisher HA et al (2003) Correlation of primary tumor prostate-specific membrane antigen expression with disease recurrence in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 9:6357–6362

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rowe SP, Gage KL, Faraj SF et al (2015) 18F-DCFBC PET/CT for PSMA-based detection and characterization of primary prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 56:1003–1010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Rowe SP, Macura KJ, Ciarallo A et al (2016) Comparison of prostate-specific membrane antigen-based 18F-DCFBC PET/CT to conventional imaging modalities for detection of hormone-naïve and castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 56:46–53

  32. Chen Y, Pullambhatla M, Foss CA et al (2011) 2-(3-{1-Carboxy-5-[(6-[18F]fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pen tanedioic acid, [18F]DCFPyL, a PSMA-based PET imaging agent for prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 17:7645–7653

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Yao V, Berkman CE, Choi JK, O’Keefe DS, Bacich DJ (2010) Expression of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), increases cell folate uptake and proliferation and suggests a novel role for PSMA in the uptake of the non-polyglutamated folate, folic acid. Prostate 70:305–316

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yao V, Parwani A, Maier C, Heston WD, Bacich DJ (2008) Moderate expression of prostate-specific membrane antigen, a tissue differentiation antigen and folate hydrolase, facilitates prostate carcinogenesis. Cancer Res 68:9070–9077

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Team RC (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  36. Liang K-Y, Scott Z (1986) Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 73:13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M et al (2015) Evaluation of hybrid 68Ga-PSMA Ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med 56:668–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Morigi JJ, Stricker PD, van Leeuwen PJ et al (2015) 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 56:1185–1190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Afshar-Oromieh A, Zechmann CM, Malcher A et al (2014) 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 41:11–20

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Dietlein M, Kobe C, Kuhnert G et al (2015) Comparison of [F]DCFPyL and [ Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC for PSMA-PET imaging in patients with relapsed prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 17:575–584

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Sanchez-Crespo A (2013) Comparison of gallium-68 and fluorine-18 imaging characteristics in positron emission tomography. Appl Radiat Isot 76:55–62, Including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank funding from the Prostate Cancer Foundation-Young Investigator Award, CA134675, CA184288, CA103175, CA183031. We thank Akimosa Jeffrey-Kwanisai and Yavette Morton for providing clinical coordination of this trial.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Steve Y. Cho

    Present address: , Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1111 Highland Avenue, WIMR1 Rm 7139, Madison, 53593, WI, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Steven P. Rowe, Katarzyna J. Macura, Esther Mena, Hong Fan, Robert F. Dannals, Ying Chen, Ronnie C. Mease, Zsolt Szabo, Martin G. Pomper & Steve Y. Cho

  2. Department of Oncology in the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Amanda L. Blackford, Rosa Nadal, Emmanuel S. Antonarakis, Mario Eisenberger & Michael Carducci

Authors
  1. Steven P. Rowe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katarzyna J. Macura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Esther Mena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amanda L. Blackford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rosa Nadal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emmanuel S. Antonarakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mario Eisenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michael Carducci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hong Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Robert F. Dannals
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ying Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Ronnie C. Mease
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Zsolt Szabo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Martin G. Pomper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Steve Y. Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Y. Cho.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

MGP, RCM, and YC are co-inventors on a US Patent covering [18F]DCFPyL and as such are entitled to a portion of any licensing fees and royalties generated by this technology. This arrangement has been reviewed and approved by the Johns Hopkins University in accordance with its conflict of interest policies.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 2555 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rowe, S.P., Macura, K.J., Mena, E. et al. PSMA-Based [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT Is Superior to Conventional Imaging for Lesion Detection in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 18, 411–419 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-016-0957-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-016-0957-6

Key words

Search

Navigation