YÜKSEK RİSKLİ PROSTAT KANSERİNDE 68GA-PSMA PET/BT’NİN TEDAVİ YÖNETİMİNE ETKİSİ

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 84 Sayı: 1, 48 - 56, 15.01.2021

Duygu Has Sımsek , Emine Göknur Işık , Caner Civan , Zeynep Gözde Özkan Serkan Kuyumcu , Ayça İribaş Öner Şanlı , Yasemin Şanlı

https://doi.org/10.26650/IUITFD.2020.831103

Öz

Amaç: Yüksek riskli prostat kanserinde (PK) 68Ga-PSMA PET/ BT’nin (PSMA PET) tedavi yönetimine etkisi değerlendirildi. Gereç ve Yöntem: Yüksek riskli PK nedeniyle evreleme amaçlı PSMA PET yapılan hastalar retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Hastaların PSMA PET öncesi abdominopelvik BT (n=126), pelvik MR (n=42) ve kemik sintigrafisi (KS) (n=40) bulunmaktaydı. Tüm klinik, biyokimya ve görüntüleme datası belgelendi. Hastalara uygulanan tedavilerin incelenmesi amacıyla hastalar takibe alındı. PK ile ilişkili artmış PSMA tutulumları önceden PSMA-RADS versiyon 1,0’da tanımlanan 5 puanlı skalaya göre belgelendi. PSMA PET’in hasta yönetimine etkisi pre-post PET/BT anketler ile retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. PSMA PET sonuçlarına göre yönetim değişikliği inter ve intramodalite değişiklik olarak kategorize edildi. Altgruplar eşleştirilmiş t-testi ile SPSS version 24,0 programında karşılaştırıldı. p değeri <0,05 anlamlı kabul edildi. Bulgular: Toplam 126 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Medyan PSA değeri 30,8 ng/ml (%95CI: 2,1-268,6 ng/ml) ve medyan GS 8 (range: 6-10) idi. PSMA PET sonuçlarına göre 41 hastada (%32,5) hastalık daha çok yaygın iken, 2 hastada (%1,6) daha az yaygın idi. Toplamda tedavi yönetimi 38 hastada (%30,1) değişti. Intermodalite değişiklik 29 hastada (%23) görülürken, intramodalite değişiklik 9 hastada (%7,1) görüldü. Yönetimdeki değişiklik KS olan ve olmayan grupta, %30 ve %30,2 ile benzerdi. Sonuç: PSMA PET yüksek riskli PK’de hastalar standart görüntülemeler ile evrelense bile neredeyse üçte birinde tedavi yönetimini etkilemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

68Ga-PSMA PET/BT, prostat kanseri, evreleme, tedavi yönetimi

THE IMPACT OF 68GA-PSMA PET/CT ON THERAPY MANAGEMENT OF HIGH RISK PROSTATE CANCER

Öz

Objective: We evaluated the impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT (PSMA PET) on therapy management of newly diagnosed highrisk prostate cancer (PCa). Material and Method: Patients who underwent a PSMA PET for primary staging of high-risk PCa were evaluated retrospectively. Patients had abdominopelvic CT (n=126), pelvic MRI (n=42) and bone scintigraphy (BS) (n=40) prior to PSMA PET. All clinical, biochemical, and imaging data were documented. Increased PSMA uptakes related to PCa were documented according to previously described PSMA-RADS version 1.0 based on a fivepoint scale. The impact of PSMA PET on patient management was evaluated through pre and post PET/CT questionnaires, retrospectively. Management changes were categorized as inter or intramodality change, based on PSMA PET results. Paired samples t-test was used to compare subgroups in SPSS version 24.0 software. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 126 patients were included in the study. The median PSA level was 30.8 ng/ml (95%CI: 2.1-268.6 ng/ml) and median GS was 8 (range: 6-10). Based on the PSMA PET findings, 41 patients (32.5%) had more extensive disease and 2 patients (1.6%) had less extensive disease. Overall, therapy management was changed in 38 patients (30.1%). Intermodality changes occurred in 29 patients (23%), and intramodality changes occurred in 9 patients (7.1%). The change in management was similar in patients with BS and without BS, 30% vs. 30.2%. Conclusion: PSMA PET impacted the therapy management in almost one-third of patients in high-risk PCa even though they had already been staged with standard imaging modalities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, prostate cancer, staging, therapy management

Kaynakça

• 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2017;67(1):7-30. [CrossRef]
• 2. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015;136(5):E359-86. [CrossRef]
• 3. Mottet N, Cornford P, van den Bergh R. EAU-EANMESTRO- ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer, version 2020. [CrossRef]
• 4. Hövels A, Heesakkers R, Adang E, Jager G, Strum S, Hoogeveen Y, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2008;63(4):387- 95. [CrossRef]
• 5. Abuzallouf S, Dayes I, Lukka H. Baseline staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: a summary of the literature. J Urol 2004;171(6):2122-7. [CrossRef]
• 6. Sweat SD, Pacelli A, Murphy GP, Bostwick DG. Prostatespecific membrane antigen expression is greatest in prostate adenocarcinoma and lymph node metastases. Urology 1998;52(4):637-40. [CrossRef]
• 7. Rauscher I, Maurer T, Beer AJ, Graner F-P, Haller B, Weirich G, et al. Value of 68Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET for the assessment of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence: comparison with histopathology after salvage lymphadenectomy. J Nucl Med 2016;57(11):1713-9. [CrossRef]
• 8. Pyka T, Okamoto S, Dahlbender M, Tauber R, Retz M, Heck M, et al. Comparison of bone scintigraphy and 68Ga-PSMA PET for skeletal staging in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 2016;43(12):2114-21. [CrossRef]
• 9. Simsek DH, Sanli Y, Civan C, Engin MN, Isik EG, Ozkan ZG, et al. Does bone scintigraphy still have a role in the era of 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer? Ann Nucl Med 2020;34(7):476-85. [CrossRef]
• 10. Hope TA, Aggarwal R, Chee B, Tao D, Greene KL, Cooperberg MR, et al. Impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET on management in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2017;58(12):1956-61. [CrossRef]
• 11. Calais J, Fendler WP, Eiber M, Gartmann J, Chu F-I, Nickols NG, et al. Impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on the management of prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence. J Nucl Med 2018;59(3):434-41. [CrossRef]
• 12. Han S, Woo S, Kim YJ, Suh CH. Impact of 68 Ga-PSMA PET on the Management of Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2018;74(2):179-90. [CrossRef]
• 13. Afaq A, Alahmed S, Chen S-h, Lengana T, Haroon A, Payne H, et al. Impact of 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT on prostate cancer management. J Nucl Med 2018;59(1):89-92. [CrossRef]
• 14. Roach PJ, Francis R, Emmett L, Hsiao E, Kneebone A, Hruby G, et al. The impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT on management intent in prostate cancer: results of an Australian prospective multicenter study. J Nucl Med 2018;59(1):82-8. [CrossRef]
• 15. Ferraro DA, Schüler HIG, Muehlematter UJ, Eberli D, Müller J, Müller A, et al. Impact of 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET staging on clinical decision-making in patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 2019:47(3):652-64. [CrossRef]
• 16. Onal C, Torun N, Akyol F, Guler OC, Hurmuz P, Yildirim BA, et al. Integration of 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in Radiotherapy Planning for Prostate Cancer Patients. Clin Nucl Med 2019; 44(9):e510-e6. [CrossRef]
• 17. Simsek DH, Sanli Y, Engin MN, Erdem S, Sanli O. Detection of metastases in newly diagnosed prostate cancer by using 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and its relationship with modified D’Amico risk classification. Eur J Nucl Med 2020:1-11. [CrossRef]
• 18. Sanli Y, Kuyumcu S, Sanli O, Buyukkaya F, İribaş A, Alcin G, et al. Relationships between serum PSA levels, Gleason scores and results of 68Ga-PSMAPET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer. Ann Nucl Med 2017;31(9):709-17. [CrossRef]
• 19. Simsek DH, Sanli Y, Kuyumcu S, Engin MN, Buyukkaya F, Demirci E. Clinical impact of lower limb imaging in 68Ga- PSMA PET-CT for patients with prostate cancer. J Nucl Med Technol 2019:47(3):233-7. [CrossRef]
• 20. Rowe SP, Pienta KJ, Pomper MG, Gorin MA. Proposal for a structured reporting system for prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted PET imaging: PSMA-RADS version 1.0. J Nucl Med 2018;59(3):479-85. [CrossRef]
• 21. Werner RA, Bundschuh RA, Bundschuh L, Javadi MS, Higuchi T, Weich A, et al. Molecular imaging reporting and data systems (MI-RADS): a generalizable framework for targeted radiotracers with theranostic implications. Ann Nucl Med 2018;32(8):512-22. [CrossRef]
• 22. Sweeney C, Chen Y, Liu G, Carducci M, Jarrard D, Eisenberger M, et al. Long term efficacy and QOL data of chemohormonal therapy (C-HT) in low and high volume hormone naïve metastatic prostate cancer (PrCa): E3805 CHAARTED trial. Ann Oncol 2016;27(suppl_6). [CrossRef]
• 23. Donswijk ML, van Leeuwen PJ, Vegt E, Cheung Z, Heijmink SW, van der Poel HG, et al. Clinical impact of PSMA PET/CT in primary prostate cancer compared to conventional nodal and distant staging: a retrospective single center study. BMC cancer 2020;20(1):1-10. [CrossRef]
• 24. Yaxley JW, Raveenthiran S, Nouhaud F-X, Samaratunga H, Yaxley WJ, Coughlin G, et al. Risk of metastatic disease on 68gallium-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan for primary staging of 1253 men at the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2019;124(3):401-7. [CrossRef]
• 25. Ferraro DA, Lehner F, Becker AS, Kranzbühler B, Kudura K, Mebert I, et al. Improved oncological outcome after radical prostatectomy in patients staged with 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET: a single-center retrospective cohort comparison. Eur J Nucl Med 2020:1-10. [CrossRef]
• 26. Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. TNM classification of malignant tumours: John Wiley & Sons; 2017. [CrossRef]
• 27. Nørgaard M, Jensen AØ, Jacobsen JB, Cetin K, Fryzek JP, Sørensen HT. Skeletal related events, bone metastasis and survival of prostate cancer: a population based cohort study in Denmark (1999 to 2007). J Urol 2010;184(1):162-7. [CrossRef]
• 28. Schmidt-Hegemann N-S, Eze C, Li M, Rogowski P, Schaefer C, Stief C, et al. Impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT on the radiotherapeutic approach to prostate cancer in comparison to CT: a retrospective analysis. J Nucl Med 2019;60(7):963-70. [CrossRef]
• 29. Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I, Souvatzoglou M, Haller B, Weirich G, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of 68gallium-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 2016;195(5):1436-43. [CrossRef]
• 30. Ceci F, Castellucci P, Graziani T, Farolfi A, Fonti C, Lodi F, et al. 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in recurrent prostate cancer: efficacy in different clinical stages of PSA failure after radical therapy. Eur J Nucl Med 2019;46(1):31-9. [CrossRef]
• 31. Gravis G, Boher J-M, Fizazi K, Joly F, Priou F, Marino P, et al. Prognostic factors for survival in noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer: validation of the glass model and development of a novel simplified prognostic model. Eur Urol 2015;68(2):196-204. [CrossRef]
• 32. Glinsky GV, Glinskii AB, Stephenson AJ, Hoffman RM, Gerald WL. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of prostate cancer. J Clin Investig 2004;113(6):913- 23. [CrossRef]
• 33. Parker CC, James ND, Brawley CD, Clarke NW, Hoyle AP, Ali A, et al. Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 2018;392(10162):2353-66. [CrossRef]
• 34. Hruby G, Eade T, Emmett L, Ho B, Hsiao E, Schembri G, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT staging prior to definitive radiation treatment for prostate cancer. Asia-Pac J Clin Oncol 2018;14(4):343-6. [CrossRef]