PSMA-PET follow-up to assess response in patients not receiving PSMA therapy: Is there value beyond localization of disease?
Alina T Küper,David Kersting,Tugce Telli,Ken Herrmann,Axel Rominger,Ali Afshar-Oromieh,Leonor Lopes,Sofia Karkampouna,Kuangyu Shi,Moon Kim,Boris Hadaschik,Christopher Darr,Lale Umutlu,Wolfgang P Fendler,Robert Seifert
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.96738
IF: 11.6
2024-06-11
Theranostics
Abstract:Introduction: Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography (PSMA-PET) is routinely used for the staging of patients with prostate cancer, but data on response assessment are sparse and primarily stem from metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients treated with PSMA radioligand therapy. Still, follow-up PSMA-PET is employed in earlier disease stages in case of clinical suspicion of disease persistence, recurrence or progression to decide if localized or systemic treatment is indicated. Therefore, the prognostic value of PSMA-PET derived tumor volumes in earlier disease stages (i.e., hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) and non-[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) therapy castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)) are evaluated in this manuscript. Methods: A total number of 73 patients (6 primary staging, 42 HSPC, 25 CRPC) underwent two (i.e., baseline and follow-up, median interval: 379 days) whole-body [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT scans between Nov 2014 and Dec 2018. Analysis was restricted to non-LuPSMA therapy patients. PSMA-PETs were retrospectively analyzed and primary tumor, lymph node-, visceral-, and bone metastases were segmented. Body weight-adjusted organ-specific and total tumor volumes (PSMAvol: sum of PET volumes of all lesions) were measured for baseline and follow-up. PSMAvol response was calculated as the absolute difference of whole-body tumor volumes. High metastatic burden (>5 metastases), RECIP 1.0 and PSMA-PET Progression Criteria (PPP) were determined. Survival data were sourced from the cancer registry. Results: The average number of tumor lesions per patient on the initial PET examination was 10.3 (SD 28.4). At baseline, PSMAvol was strongly associated with OS (HR 3.92, p <0.001; n = 73). Likewise, response in PSMAvol was significantly associated with OS (HR 10.48, p < 0.005; n = 73). PPP achieved significance as well (HR 2.19, p <0.05, n = 73). Patients with hormone sensitive disease and poor PSMAvol response (upper quartile of PSMAvol change) in follow-up had shorter outcome (p < 0.05; n = 42). PSMAvol in bones was the most relevant parameter for OS prognostication at baseline and for response assessment (HR 31.11 p < 0.001; HR 32.27, p < 0.001; n = 73). Conclusion: PPP and response in PSMAvol were significantly associated with OS in the present heterogeneous cohort. Bone tumor volume was the relevant miTNM region for OS prognostication. Future prospective evaluation of the performance of organ specific PSMAvol in more homogeneous cohorts seems warranted.