Fluorine-18-labelled Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Diagnose and Localise Prostate Cancer. A Prospective Single-arm Paired Comparison (PEDAL)

Background and objective: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate is used for prostate cancer diagnosis. However, mpMRI has lower sensitivity for small tumours. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) offers increased sensitivity over conventional imaging. This study aims to determine whether the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-DCFPyL PSMA-PET/CT was superior to that of mpMRI for detecting prostate cancer (PCa) at biopsy. Methods: Between 2020 and 2021, a prospective multicentre single-arm phase 3 imaging trial enrolled patients with clinical suspicion for PCa to have both mpMRI and PSMA-PET/CT (thorax to thigh), with reviewers blinded to the results of other imaging. Multiparametric MRI was considered positive for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) 3-5. PSMA-PET/CT was assessed quantitatively (positive maximum standardised uptake value [SUVmax] >7) and qualitatively (five-point lexicon of certainty). Patients underwent targeted and systematic biopsy, with the technique at the discretion of the treating urologist. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) >= 2. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy for detecting PCa, reported as sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating curve. The secondary endpoints included a comparison of the diagnostic accuracy for detecting csPCa, assessing gains in combining PMSA-PET/CT with mpMRI to mpMRI alone. Key findings and limitations: Of the 236 patients completing both mpMRI and PSMA-PET/CT, 184 (76.7%) had biopsy. Biopsy histology was benign (n = 73), GG 1 (n = 27), and GG >= 2 (n = 84). The diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI for detecting PCa (AUC 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69, 0.82) was higher than that of PSMA-PET/CT (AUC 0.63; 95% CI 0.56, 0.70, p = 0.03). The diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI for detecting csPCa (AUC 0.72; 95% CI 0.67, 0.78) was higher than that of PSMA-PET/CT (AUC 0.62; 95% CI 0.55, 0.69) but not statistically significant (p = 0.27). A combination of PSMA-PET/CT and mpMRI showed excellent sensitivity (98.8%, 95% CI 93.5%, 100%) and NPV (96%, 95% CI 79.6%, 99.9%) over mpMRI alone (86.9% and 80.7%, respectively, p = 0.01). Thirty-two patients (13.6%) had metastatic disease. They tended to be older (68.4 vs 65.1 yr, p = 0.023), and have higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA; median PSA 9.6 vs 6.2ng/ml, p < 0.001) and abnormal prostate on digital rectal examination (78.2% vs 44.1%, p < 0.001). Conclusions and clinical implications: Multiparametric MRI had superior diagnostic accuracy to PSMA-PET/CT for detecting PCa, though the difference is not significant in case of csPCa detection. A combination of mpMRI and PSMA-PET/CT showed improved sensitivity and NPV. PSMA-PET/CT could be considered for diagnostic use in patients unable to have mpMRI or those with concerning clinical features but negative mpMRI.