Next Article in Journal
Early Development of Ubiquitous Acanthocytosis and Extravascular Hemolysis in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Alectinib
Next Article in Special Issue
Dose-Escalated Salvage Radiotherapy for Macroscopic Local Recurrence of Prostate Cancer in the Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography Era
Previous Article in Journal
Personalised Risk Prediction in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Protocol for a Multi-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

PSMA PET-CT Imaging Predicts Treatment Progression in Men with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer—A Prospective Study of Men with 3 Year Follow Up

1
EJ Whitten Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Epworth HealthCare, Richmond, VIC 3121, Australia
2
Young Urology Researcher’s Organisation, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
3
Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
4
Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
5
Department of Urology, Eastern Health, Box Hill, VIC 3128, Australia
6
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Richmond Medical Imaging, Richmond, VIC 3121, Australia
7
Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC 3084, Australia
8
Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Box Hill, VIC 3128, Australia
9
Department of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC 3051, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2022, 14(11), 2717; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14112717
Submission received: 30 April 2022 / Revised: 24 May 2022 / Accepted: 30 May 2022 / Published: 31 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Use of PSMA in Prostate Cancer Treatment)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is an essential imaging tool that is used to locate prostate cancer when it recurs. The results of this scan are used to guide clinical decisions for the management of cancer. However, the long-term effect of these clinical decisions is yet to be determined. In this study, we followed men with recurrent prostate cancer for 3 years after they had a clinical decision made based on a PSMA PET-CT. Our results showed that 75% of men had no addition or change in their treatment plan 3 years after their initial clinical decision was made. In men with a PSMA PET-CT that showed no suspected cancer, 85% had no addition or change to their treatment plan. This indicates that clinical decisions made using PSMA PET-CT in this setting can have a medium- to long-lasting effect.

Abstract

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is a novel imaging modality used to stage recurrent prostate cancer. It has the potential to improve prognostication and ultimately guide the timing of treatment for men with recurrent prostate cancer. This study aims to assess the clinical impact of PSMA PET-CT by analyzing its predictive value of treatment progression after 3 years of follow-up. In this prospective cohort study of 100 men, patients received a PSMA PET-CT for restaging of their disease which was used by a multi-disciplinary team to make a treatment decision. The primary endpoint was treatment progression. This was defined as the addition or change of any treatment modalities such as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), radiation therapy or chemotherapy. The median follow-up time was 36 months (IQR 24–40 months). No treatment progression was found in 72 (75%) men and therefore 24 (25%) patients were found to have treatment progression. In men with a negative PSMA PET-CT result, 5/33 (15.1%) had treatment progression and 28/33 (84.8%) had no treatment progression. In conclusion, clinical decisions made with PSMA PET-CT results led to 75% of men having no treatment progression at 3 years of follow-up. In men with negative PSMA PET-CT results, this increased to 85% of men.

1. Introduction

New imaging modalities have made a significant impact on the way prostate cancer (PCa) can be characterized. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PSMA PET-CT) imaging is one such modality that is increasingly utilized. The proPSMA trial has demonstrated PSMA PET-CT to be more accurate than conventional imaging (CT and Bone Scan(BS)) when staging PCa [1]. However, the true clinical impact of this new modality at multiple stages of the diagnostic pathway for PCa is still being investigated.
PSMA is a non-soluble type 2 cell surface transmembrane glycoprotein that is expressed on the surface of endothelial cells [2]. Contrary to its name, PSMA is not specific to prostate tissue [3]. In fact, it has been seen in normal, inflammatory, benign and malignant tissues of the body [3,4]. Some studies theorize that PSMA has a pathophysiologic role in carcinogenesis, in particular in regard to folate regulation and tumor-specific neovascularization [5,6,7,8]. Specific to prostate cancer, PSMA is found in over 90% of PCa cells at expression rates that are 100–1000 times greater than physiological levels especially in higher grade cancers [9,10,11,12]. Thus, PSMA has now been targeted for diagnostic imaging and therapeutic advances.
When targeted by small ligands with an attached radio-labeled marker such as gallium (68Ga) or fluorine (18F), PSMA can be combined with PET technology to produce an image that detects the presence of PCa. PSMA PET-CT is currently recommended in men with biochemical recurrence (BCR) post radical prostatectomy or in men fit for curative salvage treatment after radiotherapy [13]. However, data are limited regarding the outcomes of consequent decisions after imaging [13].
A recent meta-analysis of mostly retrospective data has shown PSMA PET-CT to have a high specificity (99%) and relatively high sensitivity (75%) on a per lesion basis [14]. The same study also found positivity rates to be low when serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were less than 1 ng/mL [14]. Furthermore, the positive predictive value of PSMA PET-CT is likely to be lower in men with solitary lesions, especially in the ribs [15]. The clinical utility of PSMA PET-CT is therefore an important clinical question for ongoing studies as PSMA PET-CT becomes more available for use globally. The question remains of whether increased positivity rates in imaging translate to changed management and ultimately improved patient outcomes. Alternately, is a negative scan predictive of a more indolent course?
The natural history of men with BCR is highly variable. Currently, post-radiation therapy, BCR can be defined as a rise of >2 ng/mL above nadir [13]. However, the correct definition of BCR post-radical prostatectomy is less clear. The most current EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guideline state that after radical prostatectomy, there is no specific PSA threshold defining recurrence. They do, however, acknowledge that the best threshold for predicting further metastases is a rising PSA of >0.4 ng/mL [16]. The AUA-ASTRO-SUO guidelines state that BCR should be defined as two consecutive rising PSA readings >0.2 ng/mL [17]. Nevertheless, after the identification of BCR, prognostic markers including ISUP grade, pre-treatment PSA, PSA kinetics (doubling time and PSA velocity) and T-staging have been found to predict the likelihood of disease progression [18]. Consequently, risk stratification tools such as the D’Amico criteria [19], CAPRA score [20], and EAU risk groups [21] have been developed incorporating these variables. Early studies have shown that PSMA PET-CT may have a prognostic role [22]; however, to our knowledge, no stratification tools have included PSMA PET-CT.
Prognostication is ultimately important for determining the timing of salvage treatment. The challenge for clinicians lies in delaying the progression to metastatic disease without over-treating these men [23,24]. Results from the recent RAVES [25] and RADICALS [26] trials coupled with older salvage treatment studies [27] reveal a potential “sweet spot” for early salvage treatment between PSA 0.2 and 0.5 ng/mL for men with BCR post radical prostatectomy (RP). However, for men after radiotherapy or focal therapy, or for men with a persistent PSA after radical treatment, the timing of salvage treatment is less clear. PSMA PET-CT may add value to determining the timing of salvage treatment as well as identifying the optimal treatment modality to offer.
In this study, our primary aim was to investigate the outcomes of men with BCR who utilized PSMA PET-CT in their management pathway.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients

Patients were recruited through the seven campuses of Epworth HealthCare hospitals throughout Victoria, Australia, between March 2017 and March 2018. All patients signed an information and consent form to be recruited into the study.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Men were eligible for the study if they had BCR for re-staging. BCR was defined in accordance with the ASTRO-Phoenix consensus definition: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 0.2 ng/mL at least 6 weeks post-prostatectomy or a PSA rise of 2 ng/mL or above nadir following radiotherapy [28]. Patients were recruited irrespective of conventional imaging findings.
Exclusion criteria were another active malignancy within the last 5 years, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, men having had prostate bed radiation within 6 months of enrolment or men who were having androgen deprivation therapy started less than 6 months before enrolment.

2.3. Study Design

This study was a multi-center prospective cohort study of men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria mentioned above.
Patients were enrolled and consented to the study. Baseline demographic data were collected along with medical history regarding their prostate cancer diagnosis and prior treatment. These men then received a PSMA PET-CT scan as part of their cancer re-staging. Each case including the results of the PSMA PET-CT scan was then presented in a multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) including urologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, uro-pathologists and uro-radiologists to determine a consensus management plan. Men received a minimum of 6 monthly PSAs for follow-up with imaging or further presentation to an MDM based on PSA results or clinical concerns. The need for treatment progression and type of treatment was discussed in the MDM consensus. Data pertaining to follow-up investigations and treatment additions or changes were prospectively collected until March 2021.

2.4. PSMA PET-CT Imaging and Radiotracer

PSMA PET-CT scans were performed at various radiographic centers around Victoria, Australia. All centers used 68Gallium-PSMA-11 as the radiotracer. These were produced using a standardized protocol which defined minimum specifications for radiopharmaceutical production. 68Gallium-PSMA-11 scanning protocols were similar across sites. PET-CT scanners acquired PET images from thighs to vertex at 60 min after administration of 2 MBq/kg body weight ± 5% of 68Gallium-PSMA-11. A low dose non-contrast CT was performed during tidal respiration for attenuation correction and anatomical correlation.
All PSMA PET-CT scans were reported by a radiologist at the center where they were performed and then reviewed by a urology-specific radiologist at a multi-disciplinary meeting.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The primary endpoint of this study was treatment progression post initial management plan. This was defined as the addition or change of any treatment modalities such as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), radiation therapy or chemotherapy. Disease progression seen on imaging or as a PSA progression with no addition or change in treatment modality was not classified as treatment progresses. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. All statistical analysis was performed using the R software. A p-value of <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Characteristics

In total, 100 men were recruited for this study. Four men were excluded from statistical analysis due to loss of follow-up. The mean age of the remaining 96 men was 71 years (interquartile range (IQR) 67.5–75.3 years) and the median PSA at the time of the PSMA PET-CT scan was 0.82 ng/mL (IQR 0.27–2.95 ng/mL). The ISUP grade of three men was unknown. Of the remaining patients, ISUP grades 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were confirmed in 4, 18, 37, 6 and 28 men, respectively. Previous treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) only was received by 52, 5 and 4 men respectively. Salvage radiation therapy post RP was received by 22 men. Other treatment combinations previously received by the patients are outlined in Table 1.
Of the men who had initial treatment with RP, 30 men had ISUP grade 4 or 5 found in their RP specimen (1 patient’s ISUP score not found). Positive margins and intraductal carcinoma were found in 28 (6 not reported) and 17 (13 not reported) RP specimens, respectively. Positive lymph nodes were found in 13 specimens; however, 23 men did not receive a lymph node dissection. Stage T2, T3a, T3b and T4 were found in 19, 37, 31, and 1 men, respectively (5 were not reported).

3.2. PSMA PET-CT Scan Results

All men underwent a 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET scan. Results showed no suspicious avid lesions in 33 (34.3%) men. A locally avid prostate recurrence was seen on PSMA PET-CT in six (6.25%) men. Pelvic lymph nodes and extra-pelvic lymph nodes were seen in 37 (38.5%) and 14 (14.6%) scans, respectively. Bony lesions and distal organ lesions were seen in 12 (12.5%) and 7 (7.29%) scans, respectively.
Results stratified by PSA level showed that 3/6 (50%) men with PSA <0.2 ng/mL had a PSMA PET-CT positive result. For men with PSA levels between 0.2–0.5 ng/mL and 0.51–1 ng/mL, 14/33 (42.4%) and 11/14 (78.6%) had positive results respectively. For men with PSA levels between 1 and 5 ng/mL and over 5 ng/mL, 15/22 (68.2%) and 20/21 (95.2%) had positive results respectively. These results are shown in Table 2 and Table 3.

3.3. Management Decisions

Management decisions post-diagnostic workup included pelvic radiotherapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SRBT), salvage prostatectomy, ADT only, chemotherapy, SRBT and pelvic radiotherapy and surveillance for 11, 15, 5, 16, 12, 35 and 2 men, respectively. This is shown in Table 4.

3.4. Follow-Up and Treatment Progression

Four (4%) men were lost to follow-up. Of the 96 remaining men, the median follow-up time was 36 months (IQR 24–40 months). No treatment progression was found in 72 (75%) men and therefore 24 (25%) patients were found to have treatment progression. Disease progression on imaging or PSA levels with no treatment progression was seen in seven (7.3%) men. Progression to ADT, radiotherapy or chemotherapy was seen in 15, 6, and 10 men, respectively. This is shown in Table 5.

3.5. PSMA PET-CT as Predictor of Treatment Progression

In men with a negative PSMA PET-CT result, 5/33 (15.1%) had treatment progression and 28/33 (84.8%) had no treatment progression. Of the patients who had no treatment progression, 5/28 (17.9%) had a rise in PSA or disease seen on imaging but no addition or change in treatment.
In men with positive PSMA PET-CT results, 19/63 (30.1.1%) had treatment progression and 44/63 (69.8%) had no treatment progression. Of the patients who had no treatment progression, 2/63 (3.2%) had a rise in PSA or disease seen on imaging but no addition or change in treatment. This is shown in Table 6.
Additionally, on multivariate analysis (Table 7), age, Gleason grade group, PSA at time of PSMA PET and presence of a solitary pelvic node were not found to be predictors of a change in management. However, a positive PSMA PET scan for metastatic disease was a significant predictor of the initiation of a change in a patient’s management.

4. Discussion

PSMA PET-CT is a new imaging modality currently being utilized for the detection of prostate cancer in men. For men with recurrent prostate cancer, PSMA PET-CT has now been incorporated into guidelines as a restaging scan when they have BCR [13]. This, however, is largely based on retrospective studies which have shown increased positivity rates of PSMA PET-CT compared to CT; BS, however, still shows suboptimal rates of detection, especially at lower PSA levels [14]. Despite this, studies have shown that PSMA PET-CT results will impact clinical decision-making for these men [29]. It is therefore important to investigate the outcomes of these clinical decisions. This study reports medium-long term treatment progression results in men with BCR triaged by PSMA PET-CT.
In this multi-site prospective cohort study of 100 men, we found that clinical decisions based on PSMA PET-CT findings led to 75% of men having no treatment progression at 3 years of follow-up. Comparably, 3-year outcomes from a study by Emmett et al. found that 64.5% of men were free from progression post salvage radiotherapy [22]. The 10% difference in results could be explained by their definition of progression which included a rise in PSA (defined as a rise of serum >0.2 ng/mL above nadir, with the addition of any ADT or radiotherapy) and the specific cohort of men they analyzed. Our results illustrate that for men with BCR, triaging with PSMA PET-CT culminates in clinical decisions that have low rates of treatment progression regardless of pre- and post-BCR treatments.
In regard to men with negative PSMA PET-CT scans, we found 84.5% had no treatment progression at 3 years. This is likely due to the image representing a low volume of disease and low PSMA expression. Interestingly, 5/23 (17.9%) of these men had disease progression seen on imaging or serum PSA; however, no treatment progression was seen. Our results again align with the results of Emmett et al. [22] who found a negative PSMA PET-CT to be an important predictor of disease control. As guidelines are being created for the timing of treatment and follow-up of men with BCR, our results should provoke further prospective studies incorporating the use of PSMA PET-CT as a biomarker for initiation or delay of treatment. Specifically for men considering salvage radiotherapy, although a “sweet spot” for treatment between PSA 0.2 and 0.5 ng/mL may exist, perhaps a negative PSMA PET-CT can improve risk stratification to avoid over-treatment of potentially indolent disease. Furthermore, the issue of timing of subsequent PSMA PET-CT after an initial negative scan needs to be addressed.
One thing to consider is the possibility of prostate cancer showing androgen receptor-independent growth. With the development of ADT in recent years, the number of these prostate cancers is growing. This has implications for subtypes such as neuroendocrine-differentiated or small cell prostate cancer which are known to be PSMA PET-CT negative but tend to be more lethal [30]. In these cases, clinicians need to be mindful of the negative PSMA PET-CT and consider the utilization of conventional imaging modalities (CT, WBBS, MRI) [31], novel imaging techniques (Ga-68-DOTATOC PET-CT or DLL3 PET-CT) [32] or measurement of serum neuron-specific enolase [33].
Lastly, our results show a myriad of treatment decisions made based on PSMA PET-CT findings. In general, men post radical treatment only were offered salvage prostatectomy or radiotherapy if no targets outside the prostate were seen. Men were offered metastasis-directed treatment if feasible or systemic therapy for a high volume of disease outside the prostate. We found, however, that the majority of men (35 men) opted for surveillance with PSA with only a small number of men receiving salvage prostatectomy (5 men) or salvage radiation (11 men). This is likely due to management plans being created through a shared decision-making process based on guidelines, expert opinion, patient preference and availability.
The main limitation of this study in our opinion is the lack of conventional imaging and MRI for all patients. Given this, men that received conventional imaging or MRI may have had added information factored into their clinical decision making. Additionally, patient preference was factored into the clinical decision-making process for all men. However, we believe this is representative of a real-world scenario. Secondly, at the time of conception of this study, the definition for BCR after RP in guidelines was >0.2 ng/mL; however, the latest EAU guidelines state that the threshold that predicts further metastases is a PSA >0.4 ng/mL and rising. Therefore, this cohort included men who may have had a lower risk of disease progression. Lastly, this was a smaller study of only 100 men. Larger, high-powered trials are needed to further investigate the role of PSMA PET-CT in this space.

5. Conclusions

In this multicenter, prospective cohort study of men with BCR, clinical decisions made with PSMA PET-CT results led to 75% of men having no treatment progression at 3 years follow-up. In men with negative PSMA PET-CT results, a higher rate of men had no treatment progression. This should provoke further prospective studies regarding the timing of PSMA PET-CT and initiation of treatment for men with recurrent prostate cancer.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.P., Z.B., P.B., D.M., S.S. and N.L.; methodology, C.P. and N.L.; formal analysis, S.O., C.P., Z.B., D.W., D.B., D.M., S.S., P.B. and B.D.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.O., B.D.K. and N.L.; writing—review and editing, S.O., C.P., B.D.K., Z.B., D.W., D.B., D.M., S.S., P.B. and N.L.; supervision, N.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by AstraZeneca Australia (Macquarie Park, NSW) for an unrestricted educational grant. Funding was also received from Epworth Medical Foundation and the EJ Whittne Foundation through the research centre for this study. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Epworth Medical Foundation and the EJ Whitten Foundation for funding the research through our center. Furthermore, to AstraZeneca Australia (Macquarie Park, NSW) for an unrestricted educational grant that also contributed to the undertaking of this study.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Monash Health Human Research and Ethics Committee (HREC number: RES-19-0000-874E).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hofman, M.S.; Lawrentschuk, N.; Francis, R.J.; Tang, C.; Vela, I.; Thomas, P.; Rutherford, N.; Martin, J.M.; Frydenberg, M.; Shakher, R.; et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): A prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet 2020, 395, 1208–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wright, G.L., Jr.; Haley, C.; Beckett, M.L.; Schellhammer, P.F. Expression of prostate-specific membrane antigen in normal, benign, and malignant prostate tissues. In Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995; Volume 1, pp. 18–28. [Google Scholar]
  3. Eissa, A.; El Sherbiny, A.; Martorana, E.; Pirola, G.M.; Puliatti, S.; Scialpi, M.; Micali, S.; Rocco, B.; Liatsikos, E.; Breda, A. Non-conservative management of simple renal cysts in adults: A comprehensive review of literature. Minerva Urol. E Nefrol. Ital. J. Urol. Nephrol. 2018, 70, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. de Galiza Barbosa, F.; Queiroz, M.A.; Nunes, R.F.; Costa, L.B.; Zaniboni, E.C.; Marin, J.F.G.; Cerri, G.G.; Buchpiguel, C.A. Nonprostatic diseases on PSMA PET imaging: A spectrum of benign and malignant findings. Cancer Imaging 2020, 20, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. O’Keefe, D.S.; Bacich, D.J.; Huang, S.S.; Heston, W.D. A perspective on the evolving story of PSMA biology, PSMA-based imaging, and endoradiotherapeutic strategies. J. Nucl. Med. 2018, 59, 1007–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Watanabe, R.; Maekawa, M.; Kiyoi, T.; Kurata, M.; Miura, N.; Kikugawa, T.; Higashiyama, S.; Saika, T. PSMA-positive membranes secreted from prostate cancer cells have potency to transform vascular endothelial cells into an angiogenic state. Prostate 2021, 81, 1390–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Morgantetti, G.; Ng, K.L.; Samaratunga, H.; Rhee, H.; Gobe, G.C.; Wood, S.T. Prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression in vena cava tumour thrombi of clear cell renal cell carcinoma suggests a role for PSMA-driven tumour neoangiogenesis. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2019, 8, S147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gao, Y.; Zheng, H.; Li, L.; Feng, M.; Chen, X.; Hao, B.; Lv, Z.; Zhou, X.; Cao, Y. Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) Promotes Angiogenesis of Glioblastoma Through Interacting With ITGB4 and Regulating NF-κB Signaling Pathway. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 9, 462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bagguley, D.; Ong, S.; Buteau, J.P.; Koschel, S.; Dhiantravan, N.; Hofman, M.S.; Emmett, L.; Murphy, D.G.; Lawrentschuk, N. Role of PSMA PET/CT imaging in the diagnosis, staging and restaging of prostate cancer. Future Oncol. 2021, 17, 2225–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bostwick, D.G.; Pacelli, A.; Blute, M.; Roche, P.; Murphy, G.P. Prostate specific membrane antigen expression in prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma: A study of 184 cases. Cancer Interdiscip. Int. J. Am. Cancer Soc. 1998, 82, 2256–2261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kaittanis, C.; Andreou, C.; Hieronymus, H.; Mao, N.; Foss, C.A.; Eiber, M.; Weirich, G.; Panchal, P.; Gopalan, A.; Zurita, J. Prostate-specific membrane antigen cleavage of vitamin B9 stimulates oncogenic signaling through metabotropic glutamate receptors. J. Exp. Med. 2018, 215, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Silver, D.A.; Pellicer, I.; Fair, W.R.; Heston, W.; Cordon-Cardo, C. Prostate-specific membrane antigen expression in normal and malignant human tissues. Clin. Cancer Res. 1997, 3, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  13. Mottet, N.; Van den Bergh, R.; Briers, E.; Cornford, P.; De Santis, M.; Fanti, S.; Gillessen, S.; Grummet, J.; Henry, A.; Lam, T. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Eur. Assoc. Urol. 2020, 1, 11–143. [Google Scholar]
  14. Perera, M.; Papa, N.; Roberts, M.; Williams, M.; Udovicich, C.; Vela, I.; Christidis, D.; Bolton, D.; Hofman, M.S.; Lawrentschuk, N. Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer—Updated diagnostic utility, sensitivity, specificity, and distribution of prostate-specific membrane antigen-avid lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 2020, 77, 403–417. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Franzese, E.; Falco, S.D.; Laterza, M.M.; Montella, L.; Facchini, S.; Liguori, C.; Coppola, P.; Diessa, Y.; Berretta, M.; Pisconti, S. The use of 68Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in prostate cancer: Diagnostic challenges and therapeutic opportunities. Future Sci. 2021, 7, FSO705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Van den Broeck, T.; van den Bergh, R.C.; Briers, E.; Cornford, P.; Cumberbatch, M.; Tilki, D.; De Santis, M.; Fanti, S.; Fossati, N.; Gillessen, S. Biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer: The European association of urology prostate cancer guidelines panel recommendations. Eur. Urol. Focus 2020, 6, 231–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pisansky, T.M.; Thompson, I.M.; Valicenti, R.K.; D’Amico, A.V.; Selvarajah, S. Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: ASTRO/AUA guideline amendment 2018–2019. J. Urol. 2019, 202, 533–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Van den Broeck, T.; van den Bergh, R.C.; Arfi, N.; Gross, T.; Moris, L.; Briers, E.; Cumberbatch, M.; De Santis, M.; Tilki, D.; Fanti, S. Prognostic value of biochemical recurrence following treatment with curative intent for prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur. Urol. 2019, 75, 967–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. D’Amico, A.V.; Whittington, R.; Malkowicz, S.B.; Schultz, D.; Blank, K.; Broderick, G.A.; Tomaszewski, J.E.; Renshaw, A.A.; Kaplan, I.; Beard, C.J.; et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998, 280, 969–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cooperberg, M.R.; Pasta, D.J.; Elkin, E.P.; Litwin, M.S.; Latini, D.M.; Du Chane, J.; Carroll, P.R. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: A straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2005, 173, 1938–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Tilki, D.; Preisser, F.; Graefen, M.; Huland, H.; Pompe, R.S. External validation of the European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence risk groups to predict metastasis and mortality after radical prostatectomy in a European cohort. Eur. Urol. 2019, 75, 896–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Emmett, L.; Tang, R.; Nandurkar, R.; Hruby, G.; Roach, P.; Watts, J.A.; Cusick, T.; Kneebone, A.; Ho, B.; Chan, L. 3-Year freedom from progression after 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT–triaged management in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: Results of a prospective multicenter trial. J. Nucl. Med. 2020, 61, 866–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Terlizzi, M.; Limkin, E.J.; Moukasse, Y.; Blanchard, P. Adjuvant or Salvage Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer after Prostatectomy: Current Status, Controversies and Perspectives. Cancers 2022, 14, 1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bourbonne, V.; Pradier, O.; Schick, U. Narrative Review of the Post-Operative Management of Prostate Cancer Patients: Is It Really the End of Adjuvant Radiotherapy? Cancers 2022, 14, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kneebone, A.; Fraser-Browne, C.; Duchesne, G.M.; Fisher, R.; Frydenberg, M.; Herschtal, A.; Williams, S.G.; Brown, C.; Delprado, W.; Haworth, A. Adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy (TROG 08.03/ANZUP RAVES): A randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 1331–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Parker, C.C.; Clarke, N.W.; Cook, A.D.; Kynaston, H.G.; Petersen, P.M.; Catton, C.; Cross, W.; Logue, J.; Parulekar, W.; Payne, H. Timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT): A randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 2020, 396, 1413–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Stish, B.J.; Pisansky, T.M.; Harmsen, W.S.; Davis, B.J.; Tzou, K.S.; Choo, R.; Buskirk, S.J. Improved Metastasis-Free and Survival Outcomes With Early Salvage Radiotherapy in Men With Detectable Prostate-Specific Antigen After Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 3864–3871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Roach, M., III; Hanks, G.; Thames, H., Jr.; Schellhammer, P.; Shipley, W.U.; Sokol, G.H.; Sandler, H. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: Recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2006, 65, 965–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Roach, P.J.; Francis, R.; Emmett, L.; Hsiao, E.; Kneebone, A.; Hruby, G.; Eade, T.; Nguyen, Q.A.; Thompson, B.D.; Cusick, T. The impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT on management intent in prostate cancer: Results of an Australian prospective multicenter study. J. Nucl. Med. 2018, 59, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Bakht, M.K.; Derecichei, I.; Li, Y.; Ferraiuolo, R.-M.; Dunning, M.; Oh, S.W.; Hussein, A.; Youn, H.; Stringer, K.F.; Jeong, C.W. Neuroendocrine differentiation of prostate cancer leads to PSMA suppression. Endocr.-Relat. Cancer 2019, 26, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Palmgren, J.S.; Karavadia, S.S.; Wakefield, M.R. Unusual and underappreciated: Small cell carcinoma of the prostate. In Seminars in Oncology; WB Saunders: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2007; pp. 22–29. [Google Scholar]
  32. Beltran, H.; Demichelis, F. Therapy considerations in neuroendocrine prostate cancer: What next? Endocr.-Relat. Cancer 2021, 28, T67–T78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Muoio, B.; Pascale, M.; Roggero, E. The role of serum neuron-specific enolase in patients with prostate cancer: A systematic review of the recent literature. Int. J. Biol. Markers 2018, 33, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Patient characteristics.
Table 1. Patient characteristics.
Number of patients recruited 100
Number of patients included in analysis 96
Mean age 71
Median PSA at time of PSMA PET-CT 0.82 (IQR 0.271–2.95)
ISUP gradeUnknown3
ISUP grade 14
ISUP grade 218
ISUP grade 337
ISUP grade 46
ISUP grade 528
Initial managementRP only52
EBRT only 5
Brachytherapy4
Brachytherapy + CT2
RP + salvage RT22
RP + SBRT + CT4
RP + RT + CT3
RP + CT2
ADT only2
RP—radical prostatectomy; EBRT—external beam radiotherapy; RT—radiotherapy; SBRT—stereotactic body radiation therapy; CT—chemotherapy; ADT—androgen deprivation therapy.
Table 2. PSMA PET-CT results.
Table 2. PSMA PET-CT results.
Positive63
Negative33
Prostate lesion only6
Pelvic lymph nodes37
Extra-pelvic lymph nodes14
Bony lesion12
Distal organ lesion7
Table 3. PSMA PET-CT results stratified by PSA level.
Table 3. PSMA PET-CT results stratified by PSA level.
PSA Level (ng/mL)PSMA PET-CT PositivePSMA Negative
<0.23 (50%)3 (50%)
0.2–0.514 (42.4%)19 (57.6%)
0.51–111 (78.6%)3 (21.4%)
1–515 (68.2%)7 (31.8%)
>520 (95.2%)1 (4.8%)
Table 4. Clinical decisions made using PSMA PET-CT results.
Table 4. Clinical decisions made using PSMA PET-CT results.
Pelvic RTx11
SBRT15
Salvage prostatectomy5
ADT only16
Chemotherapy12
Surveillance35
SBRT + Pelvic radiation2
RT—radiotherapy; SBRT—stereotactic body radiation therapy; ADT—androgen deprivation therapy.
Table 5. Follow-up and treatment progression.
Table 5. Follow-up and treatment progression.
Follow-upLost to follow-up4
Median follow-up36 months (IQR 24–40 months)
Treatment progressionNo treatment progression65 patients
Treatment progression24 patients
Progression on imaging or PSA but no treatment progression7
Progressed to ADT15
Progressed to Radiotherapy6
Progressed to Chemotherapy10
Table 6. PSMA PET-CT as a predictor of treatment progression.
Table 6. PSMA PET-CT as a predictor of treatment progression.
PSMA PET-CT negativeTreatment progression5 men
No treatment progression28 men
Progression on imaging or PSA but no treatment progression5 men
PSMA PET-CT positiveTreatment progression19 men
No treatment progression44 men
Progression on imaging or PSA but no treatment progression2 men
Table 7. Multivariate analysis of factors predicting a change in management.
Table 7. Multivariate analysis of factors predicting a change in management.
PredictorsOdds RatiosConfidence Intervalsp-Value
Age1.060.97–1.160.207
Grade group of initial prostate biopsy1.340.84–2.160.222
PSA1.001.00–NA0.710
Presence of a single pelvic node on PSMA0.380.05–1.900.283
PSMA positive scan 13.714.28–50.40<0.001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ong, S.; Pascoe, C.; Kelly, B.D.; Ballok, Z.; Webb, D.; Bolton, D.; Murphy, D.; Sengupta, S.; Bowden, P.; Lawrentschuk, N. PSMA PET-CT Imaging Predicts Treatment Progression in Men with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer—A Prospective Study of Men with 3 Year Follow Up. Cancers 2022, 14, 2717. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14112717

AMA Style

Ong S, Pascoe C, Kelly BD, Ballok Z, Webb D, Bolton D, Murphy D, Sengupta S, Bowden P, Lawrentschuk N. PSMA PET-CT Imaging Predicts Treatment Progression in Men with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer—A Prospective Study of Men with 3 Year Follow Up. Cancers. 2022; 14(11):2717. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14112717

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ong, Sean, Claire Pascoe, Brian D. Kelly, Zita Ballok, David Webb, Damien Bolton, Declan Murphy, Shomik Sengupta, Patrick Bowden, and Nathan Lawrentschuk. 2022. "PSMA PET-CT Imaging Predicts Treatment Progression in Men with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer—A Prospective Study of Men with 3 Year Follow Up" Cancers 14, no. 11: 2717. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14112717

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop