BACKGROUND: To assess which parameters of [68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) predict response to systemic therapies in metastatic (m) castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). In addition, to investigate which of these factors are associated with overall survival (OS). METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the following PSMA-PET parameters in 43 patients before and after systemic therapies for mCRPC: PSMA total tumor volume (TTV), mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean), SUVmax, and SUVpeak. prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and PSMA-PET/CT(magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) imaging were both performed within 8 weeks before and 6 weeks after systemic therapy. PSMA-PET and CT (MRI) images were reviewed according to the modified PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1. Results were compared to PSA response. Univariable survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 43 patients undergoing 67 systemic therapies were included (9 patients radium-223, 12 cabazitaxel, 22 docetaxel, 6 abiraterone, and 18 enzalutamide). Median serum PSA level before any therapy was 11.3 ng/mL (interquartile range [IQR] = 3.3, 30.1). Delta (d) PSA after systemic therapies was -41%, dTTV 10.5%, dSUVmean -7.5%, dSUVmax -13.3%, dSUVpeak -12%, and dRECIST -13.3%. Overall, 31 patients had dPSA response (46.3%), 12 stable disease (17.9%), and 24 progressive disease (35.8%). All observed PET parameters, as well as the RECIST evaluation, were significantly associated with PSA response (dTTV P = .003, dSUVmean P = .003, dSUVmax P = .011, dSUVpeak P < 0001, dRECIST P = .012), while RECIST assessment was applicable in 37 out of 67 patients (55.2%). Within a median follow-up of 33 months (IQR = 26, 38), 10 patients (23.3%) died of PC. On univariable survival analyses, neither the investigated PET parameters nor PSA level or RECIST criteria were associated with OS. CONCLUSION: PSMA-PET provides reliable parameters for prediction of response to systemic therapies for mCRPC. These parameters, if confirmed, could enhance RECIST criteria, specifically concerning its limitations for sclerotic bone lesions.

Center for biomarker research in medicine CBmed GmbH Graz Austria

Department of Urology 2nd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Department of Urology and Andrology University Hospital Krems Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences Krems Austria

Department of Urology Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Department of Urology University of Texas Southwestern Dallas Texas

Division of General and Pediatric Radiology Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image guided Therapy Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Division of Medical Oncology Department of Urology Weill Medical College of Cornell University New York New York

Division of Nuclear Medicine Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image guided Therapy Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health 1 M Sechenov 1st Moscow State Medical University Moscow Russia

Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology Vienna Austria

Ludwig Boltzmann Institute Applied Diagnostics Vienna Austria

Working Group of Diagnostic Imaging in Urology Austrian Society of Urology Vienna Austria

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Cornford P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):630-642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.002

Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026

Scher HI, Morris MJ, Stadler WM, et al. Trial design and objectives for castration-resistant prostate cancer: updated recommendations from the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1402-1418. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.64.2702

Cook GJR, Azad G, Padhani AR. Bone imaging in prostate cancer: the evolving roles of nuclear medicine and radiology. Clin Transl Imaging. 2016;4(6):439-447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-016-0196-5

Shariat SF, Semjonow A, Lilja H, Savage C, Vickers AJ, Bjartell A. Tumor markers in prostate cancer I: blood-based markers. Acta Oncol. 2011;50 suppl 1(sup1):61-75. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2010.542174

Hartenbach M, Hartenbach S, Bechtloff W, et al. Combined PET/MRI improves diagnostic accuracy in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective diagnostic trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(12):3244-3253. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2653

Lordick F, Ott K, Krause B-J, et al. PET to assess early metabolic response and to guide treatment of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: the MUNICON phase II trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(9):797-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70244-9

Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(27):3059-3067. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.54.8800

Grubmüller B, Baltzer P, Hartenbach S, et al. PSMA ligand PET/MRI for primary prostate cancer: staging performance and clinical impact. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(24):6300-6307. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0768

Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I, 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):1436-1443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.025

Grubmüller B, Baltzer P, D'Andrea D, et al. 68Ga-PSMA 11 ligand PET imaging in patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy-diagnostic performance and impact on therapeutic decision-making. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;49(2):1374-1378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3858-2

Seitz AK, Rauscher I, Haller B, et al. Preliminary results on response assessment using 68Ga-HBED-CC-PSMA PET/CT in patients with metastatic prostate cancer undergoing docetaxel chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;45(4):602-612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3887-x

Grubmüller B, Senn D, Kramer G, et al. Response assessment using 68Ga-PSMA ligand PET in patients undergoing 177Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;351:1502-1510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4236-4

Eiber M, Herrmann K, Calais J, et al. Prostate cancer molecular imaging standardized evaluation (PROMISE): proposed miTNM classification for the interpretation of PSMA-Ligand PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(3):469-478. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.198119

Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl_1):122S-150S. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057307

Hillier SM, Kern AM, Maresca KP, et al. 123I-MIP-1072, a small-molecule inhibitor of prostate-specific membrane antigen, is effective at monitoring tumor response to taxane therapy. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(7):1087-1093. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.110.086751

Paller CJ, Piana D, Eshleman JR, et al. A pilot study of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) dynamics in men undergoing treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Prostate. 2019;79(14):1597-1603. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23883

Pyka T, Okamoto S, Dahlbender M, et al. Comparison of bone scintigraphy and 68Ga-PSMA PET for skeletal staging in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(12):2114-2121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3435-0

Gupta M, Choudhury PS, Rawal S, Goel HC, Rao SA. Evaluation of response in patients of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer undergoing systemic radiotherapy with lutetium177-prostate-specific membrane antigen: A comparison between response evaluation criteria in solid tumors, positron-emission tomography response criteria in solid tumors, European organization for research and treatment of cancer, and MDA criteria assessed by gallium 68-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron-emission tomography-computed tomography. Urol Ann. 2019;11(2):155-162. https://doi.org/10.4103/UA.UA_111_18

Etchebehere E, Brito AE, Rezaee A, Langsteger W, Beheshti M. Therapy assessment of bone metastatic disease in the era of 223radium. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(suppl 1):84-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3734-0

Thomas L, Balmus C, Ahmadzadehfar H, Essler M, Strunk H, Bundschuh RA. Assessment of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer-a comparison between 99mTc-bone-scintigraphy and [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Pharmaceuticals. 2017;10(3):68. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph10030068

Acar E, Özdoğan Ö, Aksu A, Derebek E, Bekiş R, Çapa Kaya G. The use of molecular volumetric parameters for the evaluation of Lu-177 PSMA I&T therapy response and survival. Ann Nucl Med. 2019;33(9):681-688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-019-01376-3

Aide N, Lasnon C, Veit-Haibach P, Sera T, Sattler B, Boellaard R. EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(suppl 1):17-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3740-2

Feasibility and Optimal Time Point of [68Ga]Gallium-labeled Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Ligand Positron Emission Tomography Imaging in Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery After Systemic Therapy for Primary Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: Implications for Patient Selection and Extent of Surgery

Prediction of response and survival after standardized treatment with 7400 MBq 177Lu-PSMA-617 every 4 weeks in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer