The More You See the More You Miss. PSMA PET/CT is Still Affected by a Substantial Risk of Underestimation in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

Paolo Zaurito,Francesco Barletta,Giorgio Gandaglia,Pawel Rajwa,Juan Gomez Rivas,Lorenzo Bianchi,Claudia Kesch,Christopher Darr,Hongqian Guo,Timo F. W. Soeterik,Jesus Moreno-Sierra,Giancarlo Marra,Steven Joniau,Eugenio Brunocilla,Agostino Mattei,Fabrizio Dal Moro,Cristian Fiori,Francesco Porpiglia,Maria Picchio,Arturo Chiti,Roderick van den Bergh,Shahrok F. Shariat,Francesco Montorsi,Alberto Briganti
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0302-2838(24)01013-3
2024-01-01
Abstract:You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Detection & Screening III (MP31)1 May 2024MP31-19 "THE MORE YOU SEE THE MORE YOU MISS" PSMA PET/CT IS STILL AFFECTED BY A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF UNDERESTIMATION IN PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS UNDERGOING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY Paolo Zaurito, Francesco Barletta, Giorgio Gandaglia, Pawel Rajwa, Juan Gomez Rivas, Lorenzo Bianchi, Claudia Kesch, Christopher Darr, Hongqian Guo, Timo F. W. Soeterik, Jesus Moreno-Sierra, Giancarlo Marra, Steven Joniau, Eugenio Brunocilla, Agostino Mattei, Fabrizio Dal Moro, Cristian Fiori, Francesco Porpiglia, Maria Picchio, Arturo Chiti, Roderick van den Bergh, Shahrok F. Shariat, Francesco Montorsi, and Alberto Briganti Paolo ZauritoPaolo Zaurito , Francesco BarlettaFrancesco Barletta , Giorgio GandagliaGiorgio Gandaglia , Pawel RajwaPawel Rajwa , Juan Gomez RivasJuan Gomez Rivas , Lorenzo BianchiLorenzo Bianchi , Claudia KeschClaudia Kesch , Christopher DarrChristopher Darr , Hongqian GuoHongqian Guo , Timo F. W. SoeterikTimo F. W. Soeterik , Jesus Moreno-SierraJesus Moreno-Sierra , Giancarlo MarraGiancarlo Marra , Steven JoniauSteven Joniau , Eugenio BrunocillaEugenio Brunocilla , Agostino MatteiAgostino Mattei , Fabrizio Dal MoroFabrizio Dal Moro , Cristian FioriCristian Fiori , Francesco PorpigliaFrancesco Porpiglia , Maria PicchioMaria Picchio , Arturo ChitiArturo Chiti , Roderick van den BerghRoderick van den Bergh , Shahrok F. ShariatShahrok F. Shariat , Francesco MontorsiFrancesco Montorsi , and Alberto BrigantiAlberto Briganti View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008936.35187.0b.19AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: PSMA-PET represents the most accurate imaging for nodal staging in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Although this imaging modality endorses superior accuracy as compared to conventional imaging, data regarding its per-node performance is lacking, specifically in patients harboring multiple nodal lesions. METHODS: We identified 828 PCa patients staged with PSMA-PET and treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) without neoadjuvant therapies at 9 referral centres between 2016-2023. All patients received extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) at the time of RP. Tumor burden underestimation was defined as the difference between the number of pathological positive nodes vs. the number of positive spots at PSMA-PET. Lymph node invasion (LNI) risk was calculated according to the Briganti nomogram. Multivariable linear regression (MLR) models tested the impact of LNI risk and the number of positive spots at PSMA-PET on underestimation. The relationship between the number of PSMA-PET spots underestimation and underestimation burden was explored using the locally weighted scatter-plot smoother (Lowess) function. All statistical tests were two-sided with a level of significance set at p<0.05. RESULTS: Overall, 182 patients had a positive PSMA-PET in the pelvic nodes. Of these, 60 (33%) vs 51 (28%) vs 71 (39%) had 1 vs 2 vs≥3 nodal lesions. Among those, 94 (52%) patients harbored pathological LNI. Specifically, 22 (23%) vs 26 (28%) vs 46 (49%) had 1 vs 2 vs≥3 nodal metastases. Overall, 47 (26%) patients had any underestimation, with 17 (36%) vs 9 (19%) vs 21 (45%) showing an underestimation of 1 vs 2 vs≥3 nodal metastases. At MLR, the LNI risk (OR: 1.02; 95%CI: 1.01-1.03; p<0.001) and the number of suspicious PSMA-PET nodal spots (OR: 1.3, 95%CI 1.2-1.4, p<0.001) were associated with tumor burden underestimation. The risk of underestimation substantially increased according to the number of positive spots (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing number of positive spots at PSMA-PET was associated with increasing nodal burden underestimation. Nodal burden underestimation progressively increased in men with≥3 positive spots at PSMA PET. This information should guide physicians for treatment planning and preoperative patient counselling. Download PPT Source of Funding: NA © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e512 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Paolo Zaurito More articles by this author Francesco Barletta More articles by this author Giorgio Gandaglia More articles by this author Pawel Rajwa More articles by this author Juan Gomez Rivas More articles by this author Lorenzo Bianchi More articles by this author Claudia Kesch More articles by this author Christopher Darr More articles by this author Hongqian Guo More articles by this author Timo F. W. Soeterik More articles by this author Jesus Moreno-Sierra More articles by this author Giancarlo Marra More articles by this author Steven Joniau More articles by this author Eugenio Brunocilla More articles by this author Agostino Mattei More articles by this author Fabrizio Dal Moro More articles by this author Cristian Fiori More articles by this author Francesco Porpiglia More articles by this author Maria Picchio More articles by this author Arturo Chiti More articles by this author Roderick van den Bergh More articles by this author Shahrok F. Shariat More articles by this author Francesco Montorsi More articles by this author Alberto Briganti More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
What problem does this paper attempt to address?