Ga-labeled Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Ligand-positron-emission Tomography: Still Just the Tip of the Iceberg

被引:9
作者
Dundee, Philip
Gross, Tobias
Moran, Diarmaid
Ryan, Andrew
Ballok, Zita
Peters, Justin
Costello, Anthony J.
机构
[1] Royal Melbourne Hosp, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Univ Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] Australian Prostate Ctr, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[4] Univ Bern, Dept Urol, Bern, Switzerland
[5] Tissupath, Mt Waverley, Australia
[6] Bridge Rd Imaging, Richmond, Australia
关键词
LYMPH-NODE DISSECTION; CANCER PATIENTS; PET/CT;
D O I
10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.029
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVES To assess the performance of Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand-positron-emission tomography (Ga-PSMA PET) for positive lymph nodes on imaging after curatively intended radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND Seventeen patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy undergoing robot METHODS assisted salvage lymphadenectomy for positive lymph nodes on imaging were included in this single surgeon study. The performance of Ga-PSMA PET was assessed on per patient, per lesion, per landing site and per laterality level using sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive value analysis. RESULTS A total of 34 positive nodes were detected on Ga-PSMA PET with a median of 2 nodes per patient (IQR 1-3 nodes per patient). Sixty six nodes were pathologically disease positive from 14 patients, with a median of 2 positive nodes per patient (IQR 1-6). Three patients had no pathologically detectable disease. On a per patient basis, the positive predictive value was 82%. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value were not able to be calculated as all patients had disease recurrence with a detectable prostate-specific antigen.On a "per lesion" basis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 36.7%, 96.9%, 73.5%, and 86.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION Our study indicates that sensitivity of Ga-PSMA PET in the salvage setting is not yet sufficient to detect all sites of metastasis. Therefore, imaging-guided metastasis targeted treatment is likely to fail given the likely concomitant imaging negative more widespread disease. Crown Copyright (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:187 / 191
页数:5
相关论文
共 13 条
  • [1] Diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: evaluation in 1007 patients
    Afshar-Oromieh, Ali
    Holland-Letz, Tim
    Giesel, Frederik L.
    Kratochwil, Clemens
    Mier, Walter
    Haufe, Sabine
    Debus, Nils
    Eder, Matthias
    Eisenhut, Michael
    Schaefer, Martin
    Neels, Oliver
    Hohenfellner, Markus
    Kopka, Klaus
    Kauczor, Hans-Ulrich
    Debus, Juergen
    Haberkorn, Uwe
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, 2017, 44 (08) : 1258 - 1268
  • [2] Comparison of PET imaging with a 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and 18F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer
    Afshar-Oromieh, Ali
    Zechmann, Christian M.
    Malcher, Anna
    Eder, Matthias
    Eisenhut, Michael
    Linhart, Heinz G.
    Holland-Letz, Tim
    Hadaschik, Boris A.
    Giesel, Frederik L.
    Debus, Juergen
    Haberkorn, Uwe
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, 2014, 41 (01) : 11 - 20
  • [3] Initial Experience of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT Imaging in High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Prior to Radical Prostatectomy
    Budaeus, Lars
    Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi
    Salomon, Georg
    Michl, Uwe
    Heinzer, Hans
    Huland, Hartwig
    Graefen, Markus
    Steuber, Thomas
    Rosenbaum, Clemens
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (03) : 393 - 396
  • [4] Early Biochemical Relapse After Radical Prostatectomy: Which Prostate Cancer Patients May Benefit from a Restaging 11C-Choline PET/CT Scan Before Salvage Radiation Therapy?
    Castellucci, Paolo
    Ceci, Francesco
    Graziani, Tiziano
    Schiavina, Riccardo
    Brunocilla, Eugenio
    Mazzarotto, Renzo
    Pettinato, Cinzia
    Celli, Monica
    Lodi, Filippo
    Fanti, Stefano
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2014, 55 (09) : 1424 - 1429
  • [5] Emmett L, 2017, J NUCL MED, DOI [10.2967.117.196663, DOI 10.2967/JNUMED.1117.196683]
  • [6] 68Ga-PSMA Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Provides Accurate Staging of Lymph Node Regions Prior to Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Prostate Cancer
    Herlemann, Annika
    Wenter, Vera
    Kretschmer, Alexander
    Thierfelder, Kolja M.
    Bartenstein, Peter
    Faber, Claudius
    Gildehaus, Franz-Josef
    Stief, Christian G.
    Gratzke, Christian
    Fendler, Wolfgang P.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 70 (04) : 553 - 557
  • [7] Pelvic lymph node dissection for nodal oligometastatic prostate cancer detected by 68Ga-PSMA-positron emission tomography/computerized tomography
    Hijazi, S.
    Meller, B.
    Leitsmann, C.
    Strauss, A.
    Meller, J.
    Ritter, C. O.
    Lotz, J.
    Schildhaus, H. -U.
    Trojan, L.
    Sahlmann, C. O.
    [J]. PROSTATE, 2015, 75 (16) : 1934 - 1940
  • [8] Diagnostic Accuracy of Ga-68-HBED-CC-PSMA-Ligand-PET/CT before Salvage Lymph Node Dissection for Recurrent Prostate Cancer
    Jilg, Cordula A.
    Drendel, Vanessa
    Rischke, H. Christian
    Beck, Teresa
    Vach, Werner
    Schaal, Kathrin
    Wetterauer, Ulrich
    Schultze-Seemann, Wolfgang
    Meyer, Philipp T.
    [J]. THERANOSTICS, 2017, 7 (06): : 1770 - 1780
  • [9] Lerut E, 2015, UROL ONCOL, V33, DOI [10.1016/j.umlonc.2014.11.0013, DOI 10.1016/J.UMLONC.2014.11.008]
  • [10] Diagnostic Efficacy of 68Gallium-PSMA Positron Emission Tomography Compared to Conventional Imaging for Lymph Node Staging of 130 Consecutive Patients with Intermediate to High Risk Prostate Cancer
    Maurer, Tobias
    Gschwend, Juergen E.
    Rauscher, Isabel
    Souvatzoglou, Michael
    Haller, Bernhard
    Weirich, Gregor
    Wester, Hans-Juergen
    Heck, Matthias
    Kuebler, Hubert
    Beer, Ambros J.
    Schwaiger, Markus
    Eiber, Matthias
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 195 (05) : 1436 - 1442