Targeted prostate biopsy: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT vs. mpMRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer
https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.3.274
Accepted: August 6, 2022
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Introduction: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomog-raphy (PET/CT) vs. multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) targeted biopsy (TPBx) in the diagnosis of clinical-ly significant prostate cancer (csPCa: Grade Group ≥ 2).
Materials and methods: From January 2021 to June 2022, 100 patients (median age: 66 years) with negative digital rectal examination underwent transperineal prostate biopsy for abnor-mal PSA values (median 7.5 ng/ml). Before prostate biopsy, all patients underwent mpMRI and 68Ga-PET/CT examinations and mpMRI (PI-RADS version 2 ≥ 3) or 68Ga-PET/CT index lesions suspicious for cancer (SUVmax > 5 g/ml) underwent cognitive targeted cores (mpMRI-TPBx and PSMA-TPBx: four cores) combined with extended systematic prostate biopsy (eSPBx: median 18 cores). The procedure was performed transperineally using a tru-cut 18-gauge needle under sedation and antibiotic prophylaxis.
Results: PCa was found in 58/100 (58.0%) men; in detail, 44/58 (75.9%) were csPCa; mpMRI and 68Ga-PSMA showed 66/100 (66%) and 62/100 (60%) lesions suspicious for PCa, respectively. 68Ga-PSMA-TPBx vs. mpMRI-TPBx vs. eSPBx diagnosed 42 (95.4%) vs. 36 (81.8%) vs. 30 (68.2%) csPCa, respectively; mpMRI-TPBx vs. 68Ga-PSMA-TPBx showed a diagnostic accuracy of 76.9% vs. 84.9% in diagnosing csPCa.
Conclusions: 68GaPSMA PET/CT TPBx demonstrated good accuracy in the diagnosis of csPCa, which was not inferior to mpMRI TPBx (84.9% vs. 76.9%) improving the detection rate for cancer of systematic biopsy.
Panebianco V, Barchetti G, Simone G, et al. Negative multipara-metric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: what’s next?Eur Urol. 2018; 74: 48-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.007
Pepe P, Pepe L, Cosentino S, et al. Detection rate of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT vs. mpMRI targeted biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer. Anticancer Research. 2022; 42:3011-3015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15785
Sheikhbahaei S, Afshar-Oromieh A, Eiber M, et al. Pearls and pit-falls in clinical interpretation of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017; 44:2117-2136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3780-7
Pepe P, Roscigno M, Pepe L, et al. Could 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT evaluation reduce the number of scheduled prostate biopsy in men enrolled in active surveillance protocols? J Clin Med. 2022; 11:3473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123473
Perera M, Papa N, Roberts M, et al. Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer-updated diagnostic utility, sensitivity, specificity, and distribution of prostate-specific membrane antigen-avid lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020; 77:403-417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.01.049
Privé BM, Israël B, Schilham MGM, et al. Evaluating F-18-PSMA-1007-PET in primary prostate cancer and comparing it to multi-parametric MRI and histopathology. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021; 24:423-430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-020-00292-2
Uprimny C, Kroiss AS, Decristoforo C, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/ CT in primary staging of prostate cancer: PSA and Gleason score predict the intensity of tracer accumulation in the primary tumour. Eur J Nucl Mol Imaging. 2017; 44:941-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3631-6
Emmett L, Buteau J, Papa N, et al. The additive diagnostic value of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography to multiparametric magnetic resonance imag-ing triage in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PRIMARY): a prospec-tive multicentre study. Eur Urol. 2021; 80:682-689. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.08.002
Eiber M, Weirich G, Holzapfel K, et al. Simultaneous 68GaPSMA HBED-CC PET/MRI improves the localization of primary prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 829-836. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.053
Pepe P, Pennisi M: Should 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT replace CT and bone scan in clinical staging of high-risk prostate cancer? Anticancer Research. 2022; 42:1495-1498. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15621
Carvalho J, Nunes P, Da Silva ET, et al. [68Ga] Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT: Local preliminary experience in prostate cancer biochemical recurrence patients. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2021; 93:21-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.1.21
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. Grading Committee: The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40:244-252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
Aragona F, Pepe P, Motta M, et al. Incidence of prostate cancer in Sicily: results of a multicenter case-findings protocol. Eur Urol. 2005; 47:569-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2004.11.007
Pepe P, Panella P, Savoca F, et al. Prevalence and clinical signifi-cance of prostate cancer among 12,682 men with normal DRE, low PSA (≤ 4 ng/mL) and %fPSA cut-off of 15% and 20%. Urologia Internationalis. 2007; 78:308-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000100833
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo GD, et al. Is it time to perform only MRI targeted biopsy? Our experience in 1032 men submitted to prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2018; 200:774-778. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.061
Pepe P, Pennisi M, Fraggetta F. How many cores should be obtained during saturation biopsy in the ra of multiparametric mag-netic resonance? Experience in 875 patients submitted to repeat prostate biopsy. Urology. 2020; 137:133-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.11.016
Pepe P, Pennisi M. Prostate cancer diagnosis and management accross twenty years of clinical practice: a songle-center experience on 2,500 cases. Anticancer Res. 2019; 39:1397-1401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13254
Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, et al., and START con-sortium standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an international working group. Eur Urol. 2013; 64:544-552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications. A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 2:205-213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M. Can MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy replace saturation prostate biopsy in the re-evalua-tion of men in active surveillance? World J Urol. 2016; 34:1249-1253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1749-3
Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, et al. Prostate magnetic res-onance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol. 2016; 196:1613-1618. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079
Hofman MS, Lawrentschuk N, Francis RJ, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospec-tive, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet. 2020; 395:1208-1216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7
Kwan TN, Spremo S, Teh AYM, et al. Performance of Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT for diagnosis and grading of local prostate cancer. Prostate International. 2021; 9:107-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2020.07.008
Franklin A, Yaxley WJ, Raveenthiran S, et al. Histological com-parison between predictive value of preoperative 3-T multiparamet-ric MRI and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scan for pathological outcomes at radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2021; 127:71-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15134
Ma L, Wan-Chun Zhang WC, Ya-Xin Hao YX. Current state of prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT imaging-targeted biop-sy techniques for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2022; 66:776-780. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.13369
Demirci E, Kabasakal L, Sahin OE, et al. Can SUVmax values of Ga-68-PSMA PET/CT scan predict the clinically significant prostate cancer? Nucl Med Commun. 2019; 40:86-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000942
Rüschoff JH, Ferraro DA, Muehlematter UJ, et al. What's behind 68Ga-PSMA-11 uptake in primary prostate cancer PET?Investigation of histopathological parameters and immunohistochem-ical PSMA expression patterns. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021; 48:4042-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05501-1
Zhang LL, Li WC, Xu Z, et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT targeted biopsy for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer com-pared with transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy: a prospective ran-domized single-centre study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021; 48:483-492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04863-2
Liu Y, Yu H, Liu J, et al. A pilot study of 18 F-DCFPyL PET/CT or PET/MRI and ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy for intra-prostatic PET-positive lesions. Front Oncol. 2021; 11:612157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.612157
Kalapara AA, Nzenza T, Pan HYC, et al. Detection and localisation of primary prostate cancer using 68gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography compared with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and radical prosta-tectomy specimen pathology. BJU Int. 2020; 126:83-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14858
Xue AL, Kalapara AA, Ballok ZE, et al. 68Ga-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography maximum stan-dardized uptake value as a predictor of Gleason pattern 4 and patho-logical upgrading in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. 2022; 207:341-349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002254
Ferraro DA, Becker AS, Kranzbühler B, et al. Diagnostic per-formance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI-guided biopsy in patients with suspected prostate cancer: a prospective single-center study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021; 48:3315-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05261-y
Pepe P, Dibenedetto G, Pepe L, Pennisi M. Multiparametric MRI vs Select MDX accuracy in the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa in men enrolled in Active Surveillance. In vivo. 2020; 34:393-396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.11786
Roscigno M, Stabile A, Lughezzani G, et al. The use of multipara-metric resonance imaging for follow-up of patients included in active surveillance protocol, can PSA density discriminate patients at different risk of reclassification? Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020; 18:e698-e704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2020.04.006
Pepe P, Pennisi M. Morbidity following transperineal prostate biopsy: our experience in 8,500 men. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2022; 94:155-159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.2.155
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Downloads
Citations
