Can We Predict Skeletal Lesion on Bone Scan Based on Quantitative PSMA PET/CT Features?

被引:3
作者
Laudicella, Riccardo [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Bauckneht, Matteo [4 ,5 ]
Maurer, Alexander [2 ]
Heimer, Jakob [6 ]
Gennari, Antonio G. [2 ]
Di Raimondo, Tania [5 ]
Paone, Gaetano [7 ]
Cuzzocrea, Marco [7 ]
Messerli, Michael [2 ]
Eberli, Daniel [8 ]
Burger, Irene A. [1 ,2 ]
Rahbar, Kambiz
机构
[1] Cantonal Hosp Baden, Dept Nucl Med, CH-5404 Baden, Switzerland
[2] Univ Zurich, Univ Hosp Zurich, Dept Nucl Med, CH-8006 Zurich, Switzerland
[3] Univ Messina, Dept Biomed & Dent Sci & Morphofunct Imaging, Nucl Med Unit, I-98122 Messina, Italy
[4] IRCCS Osped Policlin San Martino, Nucl Med, I-16132 Genoa, Italy
[5] Univ Genoa, Dept Hlth Sci DISSAL, I-16126 Genoa, Italy
[6] Swiss Fed Inst Technol, Dept Math, Seminar Stat, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland
[7] Ente Osped Cantonale, Imaging Inst Southern Switzerland, Clin Nucl Med & Mol Imaging, CH-6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland
[8] Univ Hosp Zurich, Dept Urol, CH-8006 Zurich, Switzerland
关键词
generalized linear mixed model; prediction; prostate cancer; staging; PSMA PET; GA-68-PSMA PET/CT; EXPRESSION; EANM;
D O I
10.3390/cancers15225471
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Simple Summary: Treating patients for metastatic prostate cancer based on the information of PSMA-PET bears the risk to "under- or overtreat" patients, given that many lesions seen only on PSMA-PET but not on conventional imaging (CI) could alter their management. It is not possible to predict the disease status using CI with PSMA-PET/CT, because bone lesions can be positive on bone scintigraphy (BS), without evidence of the disease on CT. Some authors suggested using clinical parameters to predict BS results, but this does not reach enough accuracy to adjust the therapy. If an algorithm based on PSMA-PET/CT data were able to predict if lesions are visible on BS, this might be a possible way to adjust patient management based on CI-based guidelines in light of PSMA-PET/CT. Therefore, we aimed to develop a model to predict the visibility of bone lesions on BS based on PSMA-PET/CT data. Objective: The increasing use of PSMA-PET/CT for restaging prostate cancer (PCa) leads to a patient shift from a non-metastatic situation based on conventional imaging (CI) to a metastatic situation. Since established therapeutic pathways have been designed according to CI, it is unclear how this should be translated to the PSMA-PET/CT results. This study aimed to investigate whether PSMA-PET/CT and clinical parameters could predict the visibility of PSMA-positive lesions on a bone scan (BS). Methods: In four different centers, all PCa patients with BS and PSMA-PET/CT within 6 months without any change in therapy or significant disease progression were retrospectively selected. Up to 10 non-confluent clear bone metastases were selected per PSMA-PET/CT and SUVmax, SUVmean, PSMA(tot), PSMA(vol), density, diameter on CT, and presence of cortical erosion were collected. Clinical variables (age, PSA, Gleason Score) were also considered. Two experienced double-board physicians decided whether a bone metastasis was visible on the BS, with a consensus readout for discordant findings. For predictive performance, a random forest was fit on all available predictors, and its accuracy was assessed using 10-fold cross-validation performed 10 times. Results: A total of 43 patients were identified with 222 bone lesions on PSMA-PET/CT. A total of 129 (58.1%) lesions were visible on the BS. In the univariate analysis, all PSMA-PET/CT parameters were significantly associated with the visibility on the BS (p < 0.001). The random forest reached a mean accuracy of 77.6% in a 10-fold cross-validation. Conclusions: These preliminary results indicate that there might be a way to predict the BS results based on PSMA-PET/CT, potentially improving the comparability between both examinations and supporting decisions for therapy selection.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [1] Clinical insignificance of [18F]PSMA-1007 avid non-specific bone lesions: a retrospective evaluation
    Arnfield, Evyn G.
    Thomas, Paul A.
    Roberts, Matthew J.
    Pelecanos, Anita M.
    Ramsay, Stuart C.
    Lin, Charles Y.
    Latter, Melissa J.
    Garcia, Peter L.
    Pattison, David A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, 2021, 48 (13) : 4495 - 4507
  • [2] PSMA PET for the Assessment of Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Volume of Disease
    Barbato, Francesco
    Fendler, Wolfgang P.
    Rauscher, Isabel
    Herrmann, Ken
    Wetter, Axel
    Ferdinandus, Justin
    Seifert, Robert
    Nader, Michael
    Rahbar, Kambiz
    Hadaschik, Boris
    Eiber, Matthias
    Gafita, Andrei
    Weber, Manuel
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2021, 62 (12) : 1747 - 1750
  • [3] Barton Kamil, 2024, CRAN
  • [4] Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
    Bates, Douglas
    Maechler, Martin
    Bolker, Benjamin M.
    Walker, Steven C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL SOFTWARE, 2015, 67 (01): : 1 - 48
  • [5] The prognostic role of next-generation imaging-driven upstaging in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients
    Bauckneht, Matteo
    Checcucci, Enrico
    Cisero, Edoardo
    Rizzo, Alessio
    Racca, Manuela
    De Cillis, Sabrina
    Amparore, Daniele
    De Luca, Stefano
    Fiori, Cristian
    Rescigno, Pasquale
    Porpiglia, Francesco
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, 2024, 51 (03) : 864 - 870
  • [6] EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2020 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer
    Cornford, Philip
    van den Bergh, Roderick C. N.
    Briers, Erik
    Van den Broeck, Thomas
    Cumberbatch, Marcus G.
    De Santis, Maria
    Fanti, Stefano
    Fossati, Nicola
    Gandaglia, Giorgio
    Gillessen, Silke
    Grivas, Nikolaos
    Grummet, Jeremy
    Henry, Ann M.
    van der Kwast, Theodorus H.
    Lam, Thomas B.
    Lardas, Michael
    Liew, Matthew
    Mason, Malcolm D.
    Moris, Lisa
    Oprea-Lager, Daniela E.
    van der Poel, Henk G.
    Rouviere, Olivier
    Schoots, Ivo G.
    Tilki, Derya
    Wiegel, Thomas
    Willemse, Peter-Paul M.
    Mottet, Nicolas
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2021, 79 (02) : 263 - 282
  • [7] Consensus statements on PSMA PET/CT response assessment criteria in prostate cancer
    Fanti, Stefano
    Goffin, Karolien
    Hadaschik, Boris A.
    Herrmann, Ken
    Maurer, Tobias
    MacLennan, Steven
    Oprea-Lager, Daniela E.
    Oyen, Wim J. G.
    Rouviere, Olivier
    Mottet, Nicolas
    Bjartell, Anders
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, 2021, 48 (02) : 469 - 476
  • [8] 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging in patients with ongoing androgen deprivation therapy for advanced prostate cancer
    Fassbind, Saskia
    Ferraro, Daniela A.
    Stelmes, Jean-Jacques
    Fankhauser, Christian D.
    Guckenberger, Matthias
    Kaufmann, Philipp A.
    Eberli, Daniel
    Burger, Irene A.
    Kranzbuhler, Benedikt
    [J]. ANNALS OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2021, 35 (10) : 1109 - 1116
  • [9] The Hounsfield value for cortical bone geometry in the proximal humerus-an in vitro study
    Fat, Daren Lim
    Kennedy, Jim
    Galvin, Rose
    O'Brien, Fergal
    Mc Grath, Frank
    Mullett, Hannan
    [J]. SKELETAL RADIOLOGY, 2012, 41 (05) : 557 - 568
  • [10] Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Ligand Positron Emission Tomography in Men with Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer
    Fendler, Wolfgang P.
    Weber, Manuel
    Iravani, Amir
    Hofman, Michael S.
    Calais, Jeremie
    Czernin, Johannes
    Ilhan, Harun
    Saad, Fred
    Small, Eric J.
    Smith, Matthew R.
    Perez, Paola M.
    Hope, Thomas A.
    Rauscher, Isabel
    Londhe, Anil
    Lopez-Gitlitz, Angela
    Cheng, Shinta
    Maurer, Tobias
    Herrmann, Ken
    Eiber, Matthias
    Hadaschik, Boris
    [J]. CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2019, 25 (24) : 7448 - 7454