Diagnostic Performance of 68Ga Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen PET/MRI Compared with Multiparametric MRI for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

被引:29
|
作者
Margel, David [1 ,4 ]
Bernstine, Hanna [2 ,4 ,5 ]
Groshar, David [2 ,4 ,5 ]
Ber, Yaara [1 ]
Nezrit, Orian [1 ]
Segal, Niv [1 ]
Yakimov, Maxim [3 ]
Baniel, Jack [1 ,4 ]
Domachevsky, Liran [4 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Rabin Med Ctr, Div Urol, 39 Jabotinski Rd, Petah Tiqwa, Israel
[2] Rabin Med Ctr, Dept Nucl Med, 39 Jabotinski Rd, Petah Tiqwa, Israel
[3] Rabin Med Ctr, Dept Pathol, 39 Jabotinski Rd, Petah Tiqwa, Israel
[4] Tel Aviv Univ, Sackler Fac Med, Tel Aviv, Israel
[5] Assuta Med Ctr, Dept Nucl Med, Tel Aviv, Israel
[6] Sheba Med Ctr, Dept Nucl Med, Tel Hashomer, Israel
关键词
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2021204093
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background: Gallium 68 (Ga-68) prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/MRI may improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC). Purpose: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of Ga-68-PSMA PET/MRI with multiparametric MRI for detecting CSPC. Materials and Methods: Men with prostate specific antigen levels of 2.5-20 ng/mL prospectively underwent Ga-68-PSMA PET/MRI, including multiparametric MRI sequences, between June 2019 and March 2020. Imaging was evaluated independently by two radiologists by using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1. Sensitivity and specificity for CSPC (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group. 2) were compared for Ga-68-PSMA PET/MRI and multiparametric MRI by using the McNemar test. Decision curve analysis compared the net benefit of each imaging strategy. Results: Ninety-nine men (median age, 67 years; interquartile range, 62-71 years) were included; 79% (78 of 99) underwent biopsy. CSPC was detected in 32% (25 of 78). For CSPC, specificity was higher for Ga-68- PSMA PET/MRI than multiparametric MRI (76% [95% CI: 62, 86] vs 49% [95% CI: 35, 63], respectively; P<.001). Sensitivity was similar (88% [95% CI: 69, 98] vs 92% [95% CI: 74, 99], respectively; P>.99). For PI-RADS 3 lesions, specificity was also higher for Ga-68-PSMA PET/MRI than for multiparametric MRI: 86% (95% CI: 73, 95) versus 59% (95% CI: 43, 74), respectively (P =.002). Decision curve analysis showed that biopsies targeted to PSMA uptake increased the net benefit of multiparametric MRI only among PI-RADS 3 lesions. The net benefit of targeted biopsy for a PI-RADS 3 lesion with PSMA uptake was higher across all threshold probabilities over 8%. The net benefit of targeted biopsy was similar for PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions, regardless of PSMA uptake. Conclusions: Gallium 68 prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/MRI improved specificity for clinically significant prostate cancer compared with multiparametric MRI, particularly in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System grade 3 lesions. (C) RSNA, 2021
引用
收藏
页码:379 / 386
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Rationale for adopting a combination of monoparametric MRI with the prostate-specific antigen in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer: comparison with standard biparametric and multiparametric MRI
    Park, Seung Hyun
    Choi, Moon Hyung
    Lee, Young Joon
    Jung, Seung Eun
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2024, 97 (1163):
  • [2] 68Ga PSMA-11 PET/CT increases specificity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer of lesions at multiparametric prostate MRI
    Pinho, Daniella
    Mathews, Dana
    Costa, Daniel
    Pedrosa, Ivan
    de Leon, Alberto Diaz
    Dakanali, Marianna
    Sun, Xiankai
    Oz, Orhan
    Rofsky, Neil
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2021, 62
  • [3] 68Ga Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen PET/CT for Primary Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: Complementary or Alternative to Multiparametric MR Imaging
    Lopci, Egesta
    Guazzoni, Giorgio
    Lazzeri, Massimo
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 287 (02) : 725 - 726
  • [4] The use of 68Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in prostate cancer: diagnostic challenges and therapeutic opportunities
    Franzese, Elisena
    De Falco, Stefano
    Laterza, Maria Maddalena
    Montella, Liliana
    Facchini, Sergio
    Liguori, Carmela
    Coppola, Paola
    Diessa, Ylenia
    Berretta, Massimiliano
    Pisconti, Salvatore
    Trama, Francesco
    Ferro, Matteo
    Crocetto, Felice
    Fasano, Morena
    Buonerba, Carlo
    Facchini, Gaetano
    FUTURE SCIENCE OA, 2021, 7 (06):
  • [5] Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of 18F-rhPSMA-7 PET and Multiparametric Prostate MRI in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
    Hekimsoy, T.
    Heck, M.
    Schwamborn, K.
    Eiber, M.
    Weber, W.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, 2022, 49 (SUPPL 1) : S500 - S501
  • [6] Diagnostic Accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI Compared with Multiparametric MRI in the Detection of Prostate Cancer
    Hicks, Robert M.
    Simko, Jeffry P.
    Westphalen, Antonio C.
    Nguyen, Hao G.
    Greene, Kirsten L.
    Zhang, Li
    Carroll, Peter R.
    Hope, Thomas A.
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 289 (03) : 730 - 737
  • [7] Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen PET in Addition to Multiparametric Prostate MRI Triage in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: The Future is Avid
    Elfatairy, Kareem
    RADIOLOGY-IMAGING CANCER, 2022, 4 (01):
  • [8] 68Ga Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen PET/CT for Primary Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: Complementary or Alternative to Multiparametric MR Imaging Response
    Turkbey, Baris
    Choyke, Peter L.
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 287 (02) : 726 - 726
  • [9] 68Ga-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Avid Tubercular Lesions Mimicking Prostate Cancer Metastasis on Simultaneous Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen PET/MRI
    Ahuja, Aashim
    Taneja, Sangeeta
    Thorat, Kiran
    Jena, Amarnath
    CLINICAL NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2017, 42 (12) : E509 - E510
  • [10] Usefulness of MRI targeted prostate biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in men with low prostate-specific antigen levels
    Seokhwan Bang
    Jiwoong Yu
    Jae Hoon Chung
    Wan Song
    Minyong Kang
    Hyun Hwan Sung
    Hwang Gyun Jeon
    Byong Chang Jeong
    Seong Il Seo
    Hyun Moo Lee
    Seong Soo Jeon
    Scientific Reports, 11