Top

Published in:

01-12-2018 | MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-PET: added value and future applications in comparison to the current use of choline-PET and mpMRI in the workup of prostate cancer

Authors: Simona Malaspina, Ugo De Giorgi, Jukka Kemppainen, Angelo Del Sole, Giovanni Paganelli

Published in: La radiologia medica | Issue 12/2018

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) has been commonly and successfully used, in combination with computed tomography (CT) and more recently magnetic resonance (MRI), in the workup of intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Nowadays, new specific receptor targeted PET tracers in prostate cancer imaging have been introduced; one of the most used is ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA, that evaluates the expression of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA). This tracer has been rapidly taken into account for its better sensitivity and specificity compared to lipid metabolism tracers, such as ¹¹C/¹⁸F labelled fluorocholine. Besides, in the era of theranostics, this tracer is having a useful application not only for imaging but also for therapeutic purposes. The aim of this review article is, in the first part, to give an overview of the main indications and future development of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA imaging, using PET/CT or PET/MRI, according to the clinical course of the disease and in view of the current use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and choline PET in the management of PCa. In the second part, a brief overview of the promising ¹⁸F-labelled PSMA tracers and the current use of PSMA radionuclide therapy will be provided.

Jadvar H (2016) Is there use for FDG-PET in prostate cancer? Semin Nucl Med 46:502–506. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2016.07.004 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Krause BJ, Souvatzoglou M, Tuncel M et al (2008) The detection rate of [11C]choline-PET/CT depends on the serum PSA-value in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35:18–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-007-0581-4 CrossRefPubMed

Maurer T, Eiber M, Schwaiger M, Gschwend JE (2016) Current use of PSMA–PET in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Urol 13:226–235. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2016.26 CrossRefPubMed

Fendler WP, Bluemel C, Czernin J, Herrmann K (2016) PET imaging in prostate cancer, future trends: pSMA ligands. Clin Transl Imaging 4:467–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-016-0194-7 CrossRef

McCarthy M, Langton T, Kumar D, Campbell A (2017) Comparison of PSMA-HBED and PSMA-I&T as diagnostic agents in prostate carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:1455–1462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3699-z CrossRefPubMed

Eder M, Schäfer M, Bauder-Wüst U et al (2012) 68 Ga-complex lipophilicity and the targeting property of a urea-based PSMA inhibitor for PET imaging. Bioconjug Chem 23:688–697. https://doi.org/10.1021/bc200279b CrossRefPubMed

Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. www.thelancet.com. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32401-1 CrossRef

Wu J, Ji A, Xie B et al (2015) Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? an updated meta-and trial sequential analysis. Oncotarget 6:43571–43580PubMedPubMedCentral

Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J et al (2014) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 65:1046–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Fei B, Nieh PT, Master VA et al (2017) Molecular imaging and fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate. Clin Transl Imaging 5:29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-016-0214-7 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32401-1 CrossRefPubMed

12.

de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, Fütterer JJ et al (2014) Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:343–351. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11046 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Hegde JV, Mulkern RV, Panych LP et al (2013) Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 37:1035–1054. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23860 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Scialpi M, Martorana E, Scialpi P, D’Andrea A (2016) Re: PI-RADS version 2: what you need to know. Clin Radiol 71:934–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2016.04.013 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Scialpi M, D’Andrea A, Martorana E et al (2017) Biparametric MRI of the prostate. Turk J Urol 43:401–409. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2017.06978 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P et al (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68:1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.013 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Reske SN, Blumstein NM, Neumaier B et al (2006) Imaging prostate cancer with 11C-choline PET/CT. J Nucl Med 47:1249–1254PubMed

18.

Yamaguchi T, Lee J, Uemura H et al (2005) Prostate cancer: a comparative study of 11C-choline PET and MR imaging combined with proton MR spectroscopy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:742–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1755-y CrossRefPubMed

19.

Farsad M, Schiavina R, Castellucci P et al (2005) Detection and localization of prostate cancer: correlation of (11)C-choline PET/CT with histopathologic step-section analysis. J Nucl Med 46:1642–1649PubMed

20.

Souvatzoglou M, Weirich G, Schwarzenboeck S et al (2011) The sensitivity of [11C]choline PET/CT to localize prostate cancer depends on the tumor configuration. Clin Cancer Res 17:3751–3759. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2093 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Bailey J, Piert M (2017) Performance of 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT for prostate cancer management at initial staging and time of biochemical recurrence. Curr Urol Rep 18:84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-017-0736-1 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Zamboglou C, Schiller F, Fechter T et al (2016) 68 Ga-HBED-CC-PSMA PET/CT versus histopathology in primary localized prostate cancer: a voxel-wise comparison. Theranostics 6:1619–1628. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.15344 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Piert M, El Naqa I, Davenport MS et al (2016) PET/MRI and prostate cancer. Clin Transl Imaging 4:473–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-016-0192-9 CrossRef

24.

Eiber M, Weirich G, Holzapfel K et al (2016) Simultaneous 68 Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET/MRI improves the localization of primary prostate cancer. Eur Urol 70:829–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.053 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Scialpi M, Piscioli I, Malaspina S, D’Andrea A (2014) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy: role in diagnosis and management of prostatic cancer. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 32:509–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.02.001 CrossRef

26.

Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 186:1281–1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.078 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Tyson MD, Arora SS, Scarpato KR, Barocas D (2016) Magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 34:326–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.03.005 CrossRef

28.

Takei T, Souvatzoglou M, Beer AJ et al (2012) A case of multimodality multiparametric 11C-choline PET/MR for biopsy targeting in prior biopsy-negative primary prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med 37:918–919. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0b013e31825b23a6 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S et al (2014) Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 24:344–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3017-5 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E et al (2015) Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol 67:569–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.079 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Piert M, Montgomery J, Kunju LP et al (2016) ¹⁸F-choline PET/MRI: the additional value of PET for MRI-guided transrectal prostate biopsies. J Nucl Med 57:1065–1070. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.170878 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Maurer T, Eiber M, Schwaiger M, Gschwend JE (2016) Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Urol 13:226–235. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2016.26 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Storz E, Shah A, Zettinig O et al (2015) PSMA-PET/MRI-guided transrectal fusion biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol Suppl 14:e217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-9056(15)60217-2 CrossRef

34.

Zettinig O, Shah A, Hennersperger C et al (2015) Multimodal image-guided prostate fusion biopsy based on automatic deformable registration. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10:1997–2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-015-1233-y CrossRefPubMed

35.

Schild MH, Schild SE, Wong WW et al (2017) A prospective trial of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) incorporating a simultaneous integrated boost for prostate cancer: long-term outcomes compared with standard image guided IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 97:1021–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.219 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Horsley PJ, Aherne NJ, Edwards GV et al (2015) Planning magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer intensity-modulated radiation therapy: impact on target volumes, radiotherapy dose and androgen deprivation administration. Asia-Pac J Clin Oncol 11:15–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.12266 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Schmidt MA, Payne GS (2015) Radiotherapy planning using MRI. Phys Med Biol 60:R323–R361. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/22/R323 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Picchio M, Giovannini E, Crivellaro C et al (2010) Clinical evidence on PET/CT for radiation therapy planning in prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 96:347–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2010.07.016 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Kuang Y, Wu L, Hirata E et al (2015) Volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for primary prostate cancer with selective intraprostatic boost determined by ¹⁸F-choline PET/CT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91:1017–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.12.052 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Morigi JJ, Stricker PD, van Leeuwen PJ et al (2015) Prospective comparison of ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine versus 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer patients who have rising PSA after curative treatment and are being considered for targeted therapy. J Nucl Med 56:1185–1190. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.160382 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Zamboglou C, Wieser G, Hennies S et al (2016) MRI versus 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT for gross tumour volume delineation in radiation treatment planning of primary prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:889–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3257-5 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Zamboglou C, Drendel V, Jilg CA et al (2017) Comparison of 68 Ga-HBED-CC PSMA-PET/CT and multiparametric MRI for gross tumour volume detection in patients with primary prostate cancer based on slice by slice comparison with histopathology. Theranostics 7:228–237. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.16638 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Reyes DK, Pienta KJ (2015) The biology and treatment of oligometastatic cancer. Oncotarget 6:8491–8524. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.3455 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

von Eyben FE, Picchio M, von Eyben R et al (2016) 68 Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography/computed tomography for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.11.002 CrossRef

45.

Beheshti M, Imamovic L, Broinger G et al (2010) ¹⁸F choline PET/CT in the preoperative staging of prostate cancer in patients with intermediate or high risk of extracapsular disease: a prospective study of 130 patients. Radiology 254:925–933. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.09090413 CrossRefPubMed

46.

Husarik DB, Miralbell R, Dubs M et al (2008) Evaluation of [(18)F]-choline PET/CT for staging and restaging of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35:253–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-007-0552-9 CrossRefPubMed

47.

Evangelista L, Guttilla A, Zattoni F et al (2013) Utility of choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for lymph node involvement identification in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 63:1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.039 CrossRefPubMed

48.

Hövels AM, Heesakkers RAM, Adang EM et al (2008) The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 63:387–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.022 CrossRefPubMed

49.

Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I et al (2016) Diagnostic efficacy of (68)gallium-PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 195:1436–1443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.025 CrossRefPubMed

50.

Palmedo H, Marx C, Ebert A et al (2014) Whole-body SPECT/CT for bone scintigraphy: diagnostic value and effect on patient management in oncological patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:59–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2532-6 CrossRefPubMed

51.

Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E et al (2006) The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP Planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, ¹⁸F-fluoride PET, and ¹⁸F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med 47:287–297PubMed

52.

Fonager RF, Zacho HD, Langkilde NC et al (2017) Diagnostic test accuracy study of ¹⁸F-sodium fluoride PET/CT, 99mTc-labelled diphosphonate SPECT/CT, and planar bone scintigraphy for diagnosis of bone metastases in newly diagnosed, high-risk prostate cancer. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 7:218–227PubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Shen G, Deng H, Hu S, Jia Z (2014) Comparison of choline-PET/CT, MRI, SPECT, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Skelet Radiol 43:1503–1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-014-1903-9 CrossRef

54.

Jambor I, Kuisma A, Ramadan S et al (2016) Prospective evaluation of planar bone scintigraphy, SPECT, SPECT/CT, ¹⁸F-NaF PET/CT and whole body 1.5T MRI, including DWI, for the detection of bone metastases in high risk breast and prostate cancer patients: SKELETA clinical trial. Acta Oncol 55:59–67. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2015.1027411 CrossRefPubMed

55.

Pyka T, Okamoto S, Dahlbender M et al (2016) Comparison of bone scintigraphy and 68 Ga-PSMA PET for skeletal staging in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:2114–2121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3435-0 CrossRefPubMed

56.

Cook GJR, Azad G, Padhani AR (2016) Bone imaging in prostate cancer: the evolving roles of nuclear medicine and radiology. Clin Transl Imaging 4:439–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-016-0196-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Freitag MT, Radtke JP, Hadaschik BA et al (2016) Comparison of hybrid 68 Ga-PSMA PET/MRI and 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT in the evaluation of lymph node and bone metastases of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:70–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3206-3 CrossRefPubMed

58.

Afshar-Oromieh A, Avtzi E, Giesel FL et al (2015) The diagnostic value of PET/CT imaging with the 68 Ga-labelled PSMA ligand HBED-CC in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2949-6 CrossRefPubMed

59.

Berliner C, Tienken M, Frenzel T et al (2017) Detection rate of PET/CT in patients with biochemical relapse of prostate cancer using [68 Ga]PSMA I&T and comparison with published data of [68 Ga]PSMA HBED-CC. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:670–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3572-5 CrossRefPubMed

60.

Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003 CrossRefPubMed

61.

Tendulkar RD, Agrawal S, Gao T et al (2016) Contemporary update of a multi-institutional predictive nomogram for salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 34:3648–3654. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.67.9647 CrossRefPubMed

62.

Barchetti F, Panebianco V (2014) Multiparametric MRI for recurrent prostate cancer post radical prostatectomy and postradiation therapy. Biomed Res Int 2014:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/316272 CrossRef

63.

Verma S, Turkbey B, Muradyan N et al (2012) Overview of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.8510 CrossRefPubMed

64.

Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Garcia-Parra R et al (2013) [11C]Choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for early detection of prostate cancer recurrence in patients with low increasing prostate specific antigen. J Urol 189:105–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.001 CrossRefPubMed

65.

Tilki D, Reich O, Graser A et al (2013) ¹⁸F-fluoroethylcholine PET/CT identifies lymph node metastasis in patients with prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy but underestimates its extent. Eur Urol 63:792–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.003 CrossRefPubMed

66.

Picchio M, Spinapolice EG, Fallanca F et al (2012) [11C]Choline PET/CT detection of bone metastases in patients with PSA progression after primary treatment for prostate cancer: comparison with bone scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:13–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1920-z CrossRefPubMed

67.

Fendler WP, Eiber M, Beheshti M et al (2017) 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT: joint EANM and SNMMI procedure guideline for prostate cancer imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:1014–1024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3670-z CrossRefPubMed

68.

Rauscher I, Maurer T, Fendler WP et al (2016) (68)Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer: how we review and report. Cancer Imaging 16:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-016-0072-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

69.

Afshar-Oromieh A, Zechmann CM, Malcher A et al (2014) Comparison of PET imaging with a 68 Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and ¹⁸F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2525-5 CrossRefPubMed

70.

Verburg FA, Pfister D, Heidenreich A et al (2016) Extent of disease in recurrent prostate cancer determined by [68 Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC PET/CT in relation to PSA levels, PSA doubling time and Gleason score. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:397–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3240-1 CrossRefPubMed

71.

Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M et al (2015) Evaluation of hybrid 68 Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med 56:668–674. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.154153 CrossRefPubMed

72.

Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Schlemmer HP et al (2014) Comparison of PET/CT and PET/MRI hybrid systems using a 68 Ga-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:887–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2660-z CrossRefPubMed

73.

Pfister D, Porres D, Heidenreich A et al (2016) Detection of recurrent prostate cancer lesions before salvage lymphadenectomy is more accurate with 68 Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC than with ¹⁸F-fluoroethylcholine PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:1410–1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3366-9 CrossRefPubMed

74.

Sterzing F, Kratochwil C, Fiedler H et al (2016) 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT: a new technique with high potential for the radiotherapeutic management of prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:34–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3188-1 CrossRefPubMed

75.

Habl G, Sauter K, Schiller K et al (2017) 68 Ga-PSMA-PET for radiation treatment planning in prostate cancer recurrences after surgery: individualized medicine or new standard in salvage treatment. Prostate 77:920–927. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23347 CrossRefPubMed

76.

Emmett L, van Leeuwen PJ, Nandurkar R et al (2017) Treatment outcomes from 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT-informed salvage radiation treatment in men with rising PSA after radical prostatectomy: prognostic value of a negative PSMA PET. J Nucl Med 58:1972–1976. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.196683 CrossRefPubMed

77.

Henkenberens C, von Klot CA, Ross TL et al (2017) 68 Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT-based radiotherapy for lymph node relapse of prostate cancer after primary therapy delays initiation of systemic therapy. Anticancer Res 37:1273–1279. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11444 CrossRefPubMed

78.

Conteduca V, Caffo O, Fratino L et al (2015) Impact of visceral metastases on outcome to abiraterone after docetaxel in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Future Oncol 11:2881–2891. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon.15.158 CrossRefPubMed

79.

Conteduca V, Aieta M, Amadori D, De Giorgi U (2014) Neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate cancer: current and emerging therapy strategies. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol 92:11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2014.05.008 CrossRef

80.

Antonarakis ES, Lu C, Wang H et al (2014) AR-V7 and resistance to enzalutamide and abiraterone in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 371:1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1315815 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

81.

Salvi S, Casadio V, Conteduca V et al (2016) Circulating AR copy number and outcome to enzalutamide in docetaxel-treated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Oncotarget 7:37839–37845. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.9341 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

82.

Mateo J, Carreira S, Sandhu S et al (2015) DNA-repair defects and olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 373:1697–1708. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386043-9.00005-0.New CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

83.

Burgio SL, Fabbri F, Seymour IJ et al (2012) Perspectives on mTOR inhibitors for castration-refractory prostate cancer. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 12:940–949CrossRef

84.

Giovacchini G, Giovannini E, Leoncini R et al (2017) PET and PET/CT with radiolabeled choline in prostate cancer: a critical reappraisal of 20 years of clinical studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:1751–1776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3700-x CrossRefPubMed

85.

De Giorgi U, Caroli P, Scarpi E et al (2015) (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT for early response assessment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:1276–1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3042-5 CrossRefPubMed

86.

Ceci F, Castellucci P, Graziani T et al (2016) (11)C-choline PET/CT in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with docetaxel. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:84–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3177-4 CrossRefPubMed

87.

Omlin A, Mueller J, Gillessen S (2016) The oncologists’ unmet clinical needs for imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Clin Transl Imaging 4:423–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-016-0204-9 CrossRef

88.

Kallur K, Ramachandra P, Rajkumar K et al (2017) Clinical utility of gallium-68 PSMA PET/CT scan for prostate cancer. Indian J Nucl Med 32:110. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-3919.202255 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

89.

Hope TA, Truillet C, Ehman EC et al (2017) 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging of response to androgen receptor inhibition: first human experience. J Nucl Med 58:81–84. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.181800 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

90.

Ahmadzadehfar H, Azgomi K, Hauser S et al (2017) 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET as a gatekeeper for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer with 223Ra: proof of concept. J Nucl Med 58:438–444. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.178533 CrossRefPubMed

91.

Poon DMC, Wong KCW (2017) Lymph node response in a patient with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with Radium-223. Clin Genitourin Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2017.10.024 CrossRefPubMed

92.

Kelly J, Amor-Coarasa A, Nikolopoulou A et al (2017) Synthesis and pre-clinical evaluation of a new class of high-affinity ¹⁸F-labeled PSMA ligands for detection of prostate cancer by PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:647–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3556-5 CrossRefPubMed

93.

Giesel FL, Hadaschik B, Cardinale J et al (2017) F-18 labelled PSMA-1007: biodistribution, radiation dosimetry and histopathological validation of tumor lesions in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:678–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3573-4 CrossRefPubMed

94.

Mena E, Lindenberg ML, Shih JH et al (2018) Clinical impact of PSMA-based ¹⁸F-DCFBC PET/CT imaging in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after primary local therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45:4–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3818-x CrossRefPubMed

95.

Buckley RF, Saling MM, Irish M et al (2014) Personal memory function in mild cognitive impairment and subjective memory complaints: results from the Australian imaging, biomarkers, and lifestyle (AIBL) study of ageing. J Alzheimers Dis JAD 40:551–561. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-131820 CrossRefPubMed

96.

Dietlein F, Kobe C, Neubauer S et al (2017) PSA-stratified performance of ¹⁸F- and 68 Ga-PSMA PET in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 58:947–952. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.185538 CrossRefPubMed

97.

Afshar-Oromieh A, Hetzheim H, Kübler W et al (2016) Radiation dosimetry of 68 Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) and preliminary evaluation of optimal imaging timing. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:1611–1620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3419-0 CrossRefPubMed

98.

Kesch C, Vinsensia M, Radtke JP et al (2017) Intraindividual comparison of ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, multiparametric MRI, and radical prostatectomy specimens in patients with primary prostate cancer: a retrospective, proof-of-concept study. J Nucl Med 58:1805–1810. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.189233 CrossRefPubMed

99.

Goffin KE, Joniau S, Tenke P et al (2017) Phase 2 study of 99 m Tc-trofolastat SPECT/CT to identify and localize prostate cancer in intermediate- and high-risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic LN dissection. J Nucl Med 58:1408–1413. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.187807 CrossRefPubMed

100.

Haberkorn U, Kopka K, Giesel F, Kratochwil C (2016) Future trends in prostate cancer theranostics with PSMA ligands. Clin Transl Imaging 4:487–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-016-0184-9 CrossRef

101.

Matteucci F, Mezzenga E, Caroli P et al (2017) Reduction of 68 Ga-PSMA renal uptake with mannitol infusion: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3791-4 CrossRefPubMed

102.

Ross JS, Sheehan CE, Fisher HAG et al (2003) Correlation of primary tumor prostate-specific membrane antigen expression with disease recurrence in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 9:6357–6362. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(01)62198-0 CrossRefPubMed

103.

Skovgaard D, Persson M, Kjaer A (2016) PET imaging of urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) in prostate cancer: current status and future perspectives. Clin Transl Imaging 4:457–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-016-0197-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

104.

Fendler WP, Rahbar K, Herrmann K et al (2017) 177 Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy for prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 58:1196–1200. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.191023 CrossRefPubMed

105.

Delker A, Fendler WP, Kratochwil C et al (2016) Dosimetry for 177Lu-DKFZ-PSMA-617: a new radiopharmaceutical for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:42–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3174-7 CrossRefPubMed

106.

Rahbar K, Ahmadzadehfar H, Kratochwil C et al (2017) German multicenter study investigating 177 Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy in advanced prostate cancer patients. J Nucl Med 58:85–90. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.183194 CrossRefPubMed

107.

Parker C, Nilsson S, Heinrich D et al (2013) Alpha emitter Radium-223 and survival in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 369:213–223. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1213755 CrossRefPubMed

108.

Fendler WP, Cutler C (2017) More α than β for prostate cancer? J Nucl Med 58:1709–1710. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.198333 CrossRefPubMed

109.

Kratochwil C, Bruchertseifer F, Rathke H et al (2017) Targeted α-therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with 225Ac-PSMA-617: dosimetry estimate and empiric dose finding. J Nucl Med 58:1624–1631. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.191395 CrossRefPubMed

110.

Kratochwil C, Bruchertseifer F, Giesel FL et al (2016) 225Ac-PSMA-617 for PSMA-targeted α-radiation therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 57:1941–1944. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.178673 CrossRefPubMed

Title: 68Ga-PSMA-PET: added value and future applications in comparison to the current use of choline-PET and mpMRI in the workup of prostate cancer
Authors: Simona Malaspina
Ugo De Giorgi
Jukka Kemppainen
Angelo Del Sole
Giovanni Paganelli
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: Springer Milan
Published in: La radiologia medica / Issue 12/2018
Print ISSN: 0033-8362
Electronic ISSN: 1826-6983
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-018-0929-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-PET: added value and future applications in comparison to the current use of choline-PET and mpMRI in the workup of prostate cancer

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2018

Pulmonary measles disease: old and new imaging tools

2018 Scientific Referees

Radiation dose during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR): upgrade of an angiographic system from standard to Eco mode

Evaluation of incidence of acute transient dyspnea and related artifacts after administration of gadoxetate disodium: a prospective observational study

Impact of low-kVp scan technique on oral contrast density at abdominopelvic CT

Use of radiation dose index monitoring software in a multicenter environment for CT dose optimization