nach oben

Erschienen in:

10.08.2021 | Urogenital

Prospective comparison of simultaneous [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MR versus PET/CT in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer

verfasst von: Sander Jentjens, Cindy Mai, Niloefar Ahmadi Bidakhvidi, Liesbeth De Coster, Nathalie Mertens, Michel Koole, Wouter Everaerts, Steven Joniau, Raymond Oyen, Koen Van Laere, Karolien Goffin

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 2/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

PSMA-PET has become the PET technique of choice to localise the site of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). With hybrid PET/MRI, the advantages of MRI are added to molecular characteristic of PET. The aim of this study was to investigate the incremental value of PET/MR versus PET/CT in patients with biochemically recurrent PCa by head-to-head comparison.

Methods

Thirty-four patients with biochemically recurrent PCa were prospectively included. They underwent [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, followed by simultaneous PET/MR. All PET (PET_CT, PET_MR), CT and MR images were evaluated for number of lesions and location. The number of lesions at specific sites was compared using Wilcoxon-sign-rank test. For PET, the maximum and mean standardised uptake values (SUVs) were calculated for each lesion compared using a two-sided paired t test.

Results

PET_CT and PET_MR scans were positive in 19 and 20 patients, detecting 73 and 79 lesions respectively. All lesions detected on PET_CT were also detected on PET_MR. CT and MRI only were positive in 14 and 17 patients, detecting 38 and 50 lesions, respectively, which was significantly lower than PET_CT and PET_MR respectively. Combined interpretation showed more lesions on PET/MR than on PET/CT (88 vs 81). No significant difference in detection of presence of local recurrence nor distant metastases was found. SUV_mean and SUV_max values were significantly higher on PET_MR than on PET_CT in local recurrence and lymph node metastases.

Conclusions

[⁶⁸Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MR was able to detect biochemically recurrent PCa at least as accurately as PET/CT for local recurrence, lymph node metastasis and distant metastasis.

Key Points

• PSMA PET/MRI detects the location of biochemical recurrence at least as accurately as PET/CT.

• Substitution of PET/CT by PET/MRI adds sensitivity in PSMA lesion detection also in the setting of distant recurrence due to both the MR and TOF PET components.

Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Kattan MW et al (2007) Predicting the outcome of salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 25:2035–2041. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.08.9607

Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J et al (2014) U. European Association of, EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65:124–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.046

Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J et al (2014) U. European Association of, EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 65:467–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.11.002

Suardi N, Gandaglia G, Gallina A et al (2015) Long-term outcomes of salvage lymph node dissection for clinically recurrent prostate cancer: results of a single-institution series with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Eur Urol 67:299–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.011

Rigatti P, Suardi N, Briganti A et al (2011) Pelvic/retroperitoneal salvage lymph node dissection for patients treated with radical prostatectomy with biochemical recurrence and nodal recurrence detected by [11C]choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Eur Urol 60:935–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.07.060

Afshar-Oromieh A, Holland-Letz T, Giesel FL et al (2017) Diagnostic performance of 68 Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: evaluation in 1007 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44(8):1258–1268

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 56:668–674. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.154153

Grant AM, Deller TW, Khalighi MM, Maramraju SH, Delso G, Levin CS (2016) NEMA NU 2-2012 performance studies for the SiPM-based ToF-PET component of the GE SIGNA PET/MR system. Med Phys 43:2334. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4945416CrossRefPubMed

Freitag MT, Radtke JP, Afshar-Oromieh A et al (2017) Local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy is at risk to be missed in (68)Ga-PSMA-11-PET of PET/CT and PET/MRI: comparison with mpMRI integrated in simultaneous PET/MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:776–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3594-z

10.

O’Sullivan GJ (2015) Imaging of bone metastasis: an update. World J Radiol 7:202. https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v7.i8.202CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Liu T, Wang S, Liu H et al (2017) Detection of vertebral metastases: a meta-analysis comparing MRI, CT, PET, BS and BS with SPECT. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 143:457–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-016-2288-z

12.

Lindenberg L, Ahlman M, Turkbey B, Mena E, Choyke P (2016) Evaluation of prostate cancer with PET/MRI. J Nucl Med 57:111S–116S. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.169763CrossRefPubMed

13.

Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Schlemmer HP et al (2014) Comparison of PET/CT and PET/MRI hybrid systems using a 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:887–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2660-z

14.

Guberina N, Hetkamp P, Ruebben H et al (2019) Whole-body integrated [68Ga]PSMA-11-PET/MR imaging in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: comparison with whole-body PET/CT as the standard of reference. Mol Imaging Biol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-019-01424-4

15.

Metser U, Chua SS, Ho B et al (2019) The contribution of multiparametric pelvic & whole body MR to interpretation of (18)F-fluoromethylcholine or (68)Ga-HBED-CC PSMA-11 PET/CT in patients with biochemical failure following radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.225185

16.

Freitag MT, Radtke JP, Hadaschik BA et al (2016) Comparison of hybrid (68)Ga-PSMA PET/MRI and (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT in the evaluation of lymph node and bone metastases of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:70–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3206-3

17.

Metser U, Chua S, Ho B et al (2019) The contribution of multiparametric pelvic and whole-body MRI to interpretation of 18F-fluoromethylcholine or 68Ga-HBED-CC PSMA-11 PET/CT in patients with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med 60:1253–1258. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.225185

18.

Cornford P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 71:630–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.002

19.

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 23:688–697. https://doi.org/10.1021/bc200279b

20.

Afshar-Oromieh A, Babich JW, Kratochwil C et al (2016) The rise of PSMA ligands for diagnosis and therapy of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 57:79S–89S. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.170720

21.

Rowe SP, Pienta KJ, Pomper MG, Gorin MA (2018) Proposal for a structured reporting system for prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted PET imaging: PSMA-RADS version 1.0. J Nucl Med 59:479–485. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.195255CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Koh DM, Hughes M, Husband JE (2006) Cross-sectional imaging of nodal metastases in the abdomen and pelvis. Abdom Imaging 31:632–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-006-9022-2CrossRefPubMed

23.

Thoeny HC, Froehlich JM, Triantafyllou M et al (2014) Metastases in normal-sized pelvic lymph nodes: detection with diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology. 273:125–135. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14132921

24.

Messiou C, Collins DJ, Morgan VA, Desouza NM (2011) Optimising diffusion weighted MRI for imaging metastatic and myeloma bone disease and assessing reproducibility. Eur Radiol 21:1713–1718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2116-4CrossRefPubMed

25.

Padhani AR, van Ree K, Collins DJ, D’Sa S, Makris A (2013) Assessing the relation between bone marrow signal intensity and apparent diffusion coefficient in diffusion-weighted MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:163–170. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.8185CrossRefPubMed

26.

Landis GJR, Koch (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/843571/. Accessed 25 May 2021

27.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2298-2

28.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2525-5CrossRefPubMed

29.

Giesel FL, Fiedler H, Stefanova M et al (2015) PSMA PET/CT with Glu-urea-Lys-(Ahx)-[(6)(8)Ga(HBED-CC)] versus 3D CT volumetric lymph node assessment in recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:1794–1800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3106-6

30.

Heye T, Ley S, Heussel CP et al (2012) Detection and size of pulmonary lesions: how accurate is MRI? A prospective comparison of CT and MRI. Acta Radiol 53:153–160. https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2011.110445

31.

Fabozzi SJ, Schellhammer PF, El-Mahdi AM (1995) Pulmonary metastases from prostate cancer. Cancer 75:2706–2709 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7743474CrossRef

32.

Vinjamoori AH, Jagannathan JP, Shinagare AB et al (2012) Atypical metastases from prostate cancer: 10-year experience at a single institution. AJR AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:367–372. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7533

33.

Afshar-Oromieh A, Sattler LP, Mier W et al (2017) The clinical impact of additional late PET/CT imaging with (68)Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 58:750–755. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.183483

34.

van der Vos CS, Koopman D, Rijnsdorp S et al (2017) Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:4–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3727-z

35.

Shang K, Cui B, Ma J et al (2017) Clinical evaluation of whole-body oncologic PET with time-of-flight and point-spread function for the hybrid PET/MR system. Eur J Radiol 93:70–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.05.029

36.

Ter Voert E, Veit-Haibach P, Ahn S et al (2017) Clinical evaluation of TOF versus non-TOF on PET artifacts in simultaneous PET/MR: a dual centre experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:1223–1233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3619-2

37.

Ringheim A, Campos Neto GC, Martins KM, Vitor T, da Cunha ML, Baroni RH (2018) Reproducibility of standardized uptake values of same-day randomized (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and PET/MR scans in recurrent prostate cancer patients. Ann Nucl Med 32:523–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-018-1275-7CrossRefPubMed

38.

Groshar D, Bernstine H, Goldberg N et al (2017) Reproducibility and repeatability of same-day two sequential FDG PET/MR and PET/CT. Cancer Imaging 17:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-017-0113-9

39.

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 42:197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2949-6

40.

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. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.160382

41.

Meredith G, Wong D, Yaxley J et al (2016) The use of (68 ) Ga-PSMA PET CT in men with biochemical recurrence after definitive treatment of acinar prostate cancer. BJU Int 118(Suppl):49–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13616

42.

Fendler WP, Calais J, Allen-Auerbach M et al (2017) 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT interobserver agreement for prostate cancer assessments: an international multicenter prospective study. J Nucl Med 58:1617–1623. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.190827

43.

Domachevsky L, Bernstine H, Goldberg N, Nidam M, Catalano OA, Groshar D (2020) Comparison between pelvic PSMA-PET/MR and whole-body PSMA-PET/CT for the initial evaluation of prostate cancer: a proof of concept study. Eur Radiol 30:328–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06353-yCrossRefPubMed

44.

Koh DM, Blackledge M, Padhani AR et al (2012) Whole-body diffusion-weighted mri: tips, tricks, and pitfalls. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:252–262. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7866

45.

Robertson NL, Sala E, Benz M et al (2017) Combined whole body and multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging as a 1-step approach to the simultaneous assessment of local recurrence and metastatic disease after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 198:65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.071

46.

Kaufmann S, Kruck S, Gatidis S et al (2020) Simultaneous whole-body PET/MRI with integrated multiparametric MRI for primary staging of high-risk prostate cancer. World J Urol 38:2513–2521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-03066-1

47.

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. 74:469–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.22764

Titel: Prospective comparison of simultaneous [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MR versus PET/CT in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer
verfasst von: Sander Jentjens
Cindy Mai
Niloefar Ahmadi Bidakhvidi
Liesbeth De Coster
Nathalie Mertens
Michel Koole
Wouter Everaerts
Steven Joniau
Raymond Oyen
Koen Van Laere
Karolien Goffin
Publikationsdatum: 10.08.2021
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 2/2022
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08140-0

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Prospective comparison of simultaneous [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MR versus PET/CT in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer