In primary lymph nodal staging of patients with high-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, how critical is the role of Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography?

被引:18
|
作者
Kulkarni, Smita Chinmay [1 ]
Sundaram, Palaniswamy Shanmuga [1 ]
Padma, Subramanyam [1 ]
机构
[1] Amrita Vishwavidyapeetham, Dept Nucl Med & Mol Imaging, Amrita Inst Med Sci, Kochi, Kerala, India
关键词
Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen; positron emission tomography-computed tomography; prostate neoplasm; prostate-specific antigen; magnetic resonance imaging; ACCURACY; NODES; MRI; CT;
D O I
10.1097/MNM.0000000000001110
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objective To assess the diagnostic performance of Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography (Ga-68-PSMA PET-CT) in primary lymphnodal staging of patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer and to compare it with multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) whenever available. Materials and methods Ga-68-PSMA PET-CT scans of 51 patients (average age 66.0 +/- 7.0 years) with biopsy-proven intermediate-risk and high-risk prostatic cancer who were managed by radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph nodal dissection were retrospectively analyzed. Diagnostic performance of Ga-68-PSMA PET-CT in primary lymph nodal staging was analyzed using histopathology as reference. Diagnostic performance of mp-MRI, which was available in 35/51 patients was compared with that of Ga-68-PSMA PET-CT. Results Univariate analysis of patient characteristics showed significant influence of the pathological T-stage and maximum standard uptake value (SUV)max of the primary lesion on presence of nodal metastasis. In 51 patients, for patient-based analysis, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of Ga-68-PSMA PET-CT in detecting lymphnodal metastases were 80, 90.3 and 86.3%, respectively, and for lesion-based analysis 69.2, 99.6 and 98.4%, respectively. In 35/51 patients (who also had undergone mp-MRI), the patient-based and lesion-based sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of Ga-68-PSMA PET-CT were 81.3, 84.2, 82.8% and 70.9, 99.5, 98.2%, respectively, and that of mp-MRI were 43.7, 78.9, 62.8% and 32.2, 98.5, 95.5%, respectively. For lesion-based analysis, Ga-68-PSMA PET-CT performed better than mp-MRI (P value = 0.04). Conclusion Ga-68-PSMA PET-CT allows accurate detection of lymphnodal metastases in patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer prior to definitive surgical treatment. It performed better than mp-MRI in a subset of patients.
引用
收藏
页码:139 / 146
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Correlation of gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography - Computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging with histopathology characteristics in carcinoma prostate patients undergoing radical prostatectomy
    Pratik, P. Taur
    Sakthivel, Deerush Kannan
    Madhav, S. Tiwari
    Sandeep, P. Bafna
    Ragavan, Narasimhan
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2025, 41 (01) : 40 - 44
  • [42] Extrapleural solitary fibrous tumor evidenced by 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography study in the staging of a high-risk prostate cancer patient
    Braga Ribeiro, Andre Marcondes
    Do Nascimento, Thais Menezes
    Pereira Lima, Eduardo Nobrega
    WORLD JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2020, 19 (04) : 425 - 427
  • [43] How prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography is refining risk calculators in the primary prostate diagnostic pathway
    Ptasznik, Gideon
    Kelly, Brian D.
    Murphy, Declan
    Lawrentschuk, Nathan
    Kasivisvanathan, Veeru
    Page, Mark
    Ong, Sean
    Moon, Daniel
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2023,
  • [44] 68Gallium-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen PET/Computed Tomography for Primary and Secondary Staging in Prostate Cancer
    Chaloupka, Michael
    Herlemann, Annika
    D'Anastasi, Melvin
    Cyran, Clemens C.
    Ilhan, Harun
    Gratzke, Christian
    Stief, Christian G.
    UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2017, 44 (04) : 557 - +
  • [45] How to deal with a negative Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (68Ga-PSMA PET/CT) during biochemical recurrence?
    Lanzafame, H.
    Serani, F.
    Farolfi, A.
    Malizia, C.
    Fanti, S.
    Mei, R.
    Aluisio, G.
    Medici, F.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, 2021, 48 (SUPPL 1) : S265 - S265
  • [46] PEARLS: Is Our Use of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography Meaningful for Our Patients?
    Murray, J. R.
    Sankey, P.
    Tree, A. C.
    Hall, E.
    CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2022, 34 (09) : 589 - 592
  • [47] Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Gallium-68 Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for Detecting Carcinoma Prostate in Patients with Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen between 4 and 20 ng/ml
    Soni, Brijesh Kumar
    Verma, Priyanka
    Shah, Amit Kumar
    Singh, Rajendra
    Sonawane, Sunita
    Asopa, Ramesh, V
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2021, 36 (03): : 245 - 251
  • [48] Accuracy Versus Impact: The Referee Verdict on Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for Staging of Prostate Cancer
    O'Brien, Jonathan
    Chen, Kenneth
    Murphy, Declan G.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY OPEN SCIENCE, 2021, 34 : 83 - 85
  • [49] Role of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) in staging
    Kesch, Claudia
    Franiel, Tobias
    Berliner, Christoph
    Fendler, Wolfgang P.
    Herrmann, Ken
    Hadaschik, Boris
    UROLOGIE, 2025,
  • [50] Evolving Paradigms in Prostate Cancer: The Integral Role of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/ Computed Tomography in Primary Staging and Therapeutic Decision-Making
    Udovicich, Cristian
    Jia, Angela Y.
    Loblaw, Andrew
    Eapen, Renu
    Hofman, Michael S.
    Siva, Shankar
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2025, 121 (02): : 307 - 316