Objective This study aimed to explore and compare the utility of baseline 18 F-PSMA-1007 and 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/computed tomography (CT) derived volumetric parameters in initial risk stratification and prediction of prostate cancer (PCa) metastasis. Methods Forty treatment-naïve, biopsy-proven intermediate-/high-risk PCa patients were prospectively recruited. Each patient underwent PET/CT with 68 Ga-PSMA-11 and 18 F-PSMA-1007 (within 2 weeks). The maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean) of primary tumor, prostate PSMA-tumor volume (PSMA-TVp), and prostate total lesion PSMA (TL-PSMAp) were measured. Results PSMA-TVp and TL-PSMAp (with both radiotracers) mostly exhibited moderate-to-strong correlation with Gleason score, serum prostate-specific antigen level and clinical tumor stage (Spearman ρ = 0.361–0.783, P -values ≤0.022). Primary tumor SUVmax values were similar across initial risk categories. PSMA-TVp and TL-PSMAp, however, were significantly higher in high-risk PCa compared to intermediate-risk PCa ( P -values ≤0.001). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis revealed that F-PSMA-TVp, Ga-PSMA-TVp, F-TL-PSMAp, and Ga-TL-PSMAp (optimal cutoff values of 20.9, 23.4, 142.5, and 144.8, respectively) could effectively differentiate high-risk from intermediate-risk PCa [area under the ROC curve (AUCs) 0.859–0.898, P -values <0.001] with high sensitivity (~68.8–75%) and excellent specificity (100%). PSMA-TVp and TL-PSMAp (with both radiotracers) could predict presence of regional and extraregional nodal metastasis (AUCs 0.703–0.801, P -values ≤0.03) with moderate sensitivity (~47.8–70.6%) and excellent specificity (~82.6–94.1%). Conclusion Our results suggest that baseline PSMA-PET primary tumor volumetric parameters provide a noninvasive, objective, and accurate index for initial risk stratification and can predict presence of regional and extraregional nodal metastasis in PCa patients. Larger studies are warranted to evaluate their incremental role over conventional parameters.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chandekar et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: