68Ga-PSMA-11 PET has the potential to improve patient selection for extended pelvic lymph node dissection in intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer
- 250 Downloads
Radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) is a curative treatment option for patients with clinically significant localised prostate cancer. The decision to perform an ePLND can be challenging because the overall incidence of lymph node metastasis is relatively low and ePLND is not free of complications. Using current clinical nomograms to identify patients with nodal involvement, approximately 75–85% of ePLNDs performed are negative. The aim of this study was to assess the added value of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET in predicting lymph node metastasis in men with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer.
68Ga-PSMA-11 PET scans of 60 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with ePLND were reviewed for qualitative (visual) assessment of suspicious nodes and assessment of quantitative parameters of the primary tumour in the prostate (SUVmax, total activity (PSMAtotal) and PSMA positive volume (PSMAvol)). Ability of quantitative PET parameters to predict nodal metastasis was assessed with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. A multivariable logistic regression model combining PSA, Gleason score, visual nodal status on PET and primary tumour PSMAtotal was built. Net benefit at each risk threshold was compared with five nomograms: MSKCC nomogram, Yale formula, Roach formula, Winter nomogram and Partin tables (2016).
Overall, pathology of ePLND specimens revealed 31 pelvic metastatic lymph nodes in 12 patients. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET visual analysis correctly detected suspicious nodes in 7 patients, yielding a sensitivity of 58% and a specificity of 98%. The area under the ROC curve for primary tumour SUVmax was 0.70, for PSMAtotal 0.76 and for PSMAvol 0.75. The optimal cut-off for nodal involvement was PSMAtotal > 49.1. The PET model including PSA, Gleason score and quantitative PET parameters had a persistently higher net benefit compared with all clinical nomograms.
Our model combining PSA, Gleason score and visual lymph node analysis on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET with PSMAtotal of the primary tumour showed a tendency to improve patient selection for ePLND over the currently used clinical nomograms. Although this result has to be validated, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET showed the potential to reduce unnecessary surgical procedures in patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer.
KeywordsSUVmax PET quantification Lymph node metastases PET/MR PET/CT Staging Prediction model Nomogram Net benefit
Extended pelvic lymph node dissection
Lymph node metastasis
Positron emission tomography
- 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET
Positron emission tomography with prostate-specific membrane antigen
- 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI
68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/magnetic resonance imaging
- PT (2016)
Standard uptake value
PSMA positive volume
Receiver operating characteristics
Area under the ROC curve
Irradiation of the pelvic nodes
95% Confidence interval
The authors acknowledge the technicians Marlena Hofbauer and Josephine Trinckauf and their team for the excellent work on high-quality PET images.
DAF—data collection, data analysis and manuscript writing.
UJM—data analysis, statistics and manuscript writing.
HIGS and TH—patient selection, manuscript writing.
NJR, EEGWV, MM, JHR and MH—manuscript editing and revision.
IAB—study design and manuscript writing.
All authors reviewed and agreed to the manuscript content.
The Department of Nuclear Medicine holds an institutional Research Contract with GE Healthcare. This study was financially supported by the Sick legat and the Iten-Kohaut foundation
Compliance with ethical standards
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The local ethics committee approved the study protocol and all patients gave a general written informed consent for retrospective use of their data (BASEC Nr. 2018-01284).
Consent for publication
Availability of data and material
Patient imaging was done in the scope of the routine clinical diagnostic studies, and the raw data are stored in the hospital archiving system at the Zurich University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
IAB has received research grants and speaker honorarium from GE Healthcare, research grants from Swiss Life and speaker honorarium from Bayer Health Care and Astellas Pharma AG. TH holds an advisory function for MSD and Bayer. MH received an Investigator-Initiated Study grant from GE Healthcare. MM received speaker fees from GE Healthcare. Authors DAF, UJM, HIGS, NJR, JHR and EEGWV declare no conflict of interest.
- 2.Ploussard G, Briganti A, de la Taille A, Haese A, Heidenreich A, Menon M, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications-a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2014;65:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.057.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Fossati N, Willemse PM, Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Yuan CY, Briers E, et al. The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;72:84–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Briganti A, Abdollah F, Nini A, Suardi N, Gallina A, Capitanio U, et al. Performance characteristics of computed tomography in detecting lymph node metastases in contemporary patients with prostate cancer treated with extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1132–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Hovels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM, Jager GJ, Strum S, Hoogeveen YL, 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;63:387–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Evangelista L, Guttilla A, Zattoni F, Muzzio PC, Zattoni F. Utility of choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for lymph node involvement identification in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2013;63:1040–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.039.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Nguyen DP, Huber PM, Metzger TA, Genitsch V, Schudel HH, Thalmann GN. A specific mapping study using fluorescence sentinel lymph node detection in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur Urol. 2016;70:734–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.034.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012;61:480–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.044.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Banapour P, Schumacher A, Lin JC, Finley DS. Radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in Kaiser Permanente Southern California: 15-year experience. Perm J. 2019;23. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/17-233.
- 15.Roscigno M, Nicolai M, La Croce G, Pellucchi F, Scarcello M, Sacca A, et al. Difference in frequency and distribution of nodal metastases between intermediate and high risk prostate cancer patients: results of a superextended pelvic lymph node dissection. Front Surg. 2018;5:52. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2018.00052.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 18.Uprimny C, Kroiss AS, Decristoforo C, Fritz J, von Guggenberg E, Kendler D, et al. (68)Ga-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 Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:941–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3631-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.von Klot CJ, Merseburger AS, Boker A, Schmuck S, Ross TL, Bengel FM, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging predicting Intraprostatic tumor extent, extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion prior to radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;51:314–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-017-0476-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Hueting TA, Cornel EB, Somford DM, Jansen H, van Basten J-PA, Pleijhuis RG, et al. External validation of models predicting the probability of lymph node involvement in prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018.Google Scholar
- 26.Roach M 3rd, Marquez C, Yuo HS, Narayan P, Coleman L, Nseyo UO, et al. Predicting the risk of lymph node involvement using the pre-treatment prostate specific antigen and Gleason score in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;28:33–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Tosoian JJ, Chappidi M, Feng Z, Humphreys EB, Han M, Pavlovich CP, et al. Prediction of pathological stage based on clinical stage, serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score: Partin Tables in the contemporary era. BJU Int. 2017;119:676–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Kranzbuhler B, Nagel H, Becker AS, Muller J, Huellner M, Stolzmann P, et al. Clinical performance of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:20–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3850-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Fendler WP, Calais J, Allen-Auerbach M, Bluemel C, Eberhardt N, Emmett L, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT interobserver agreement for prostate cancer assessments: an international multicenter prospective study. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1617–23. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.190827.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Feicke A, Baumgartner M, Talimi S, Schmid DM, Seifert HH, Muntener M, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic extended pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: surgical technique and experience with the first 99 cases. Eur Urol. 2009;55:876–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.12.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, et al. 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;40:244–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 42.Hupe MC, Philippi C, Roth D, Kumpers C, Ribbat-Idel J, Becker F, et al. Expression of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) on biopsies is an independent risk stratifier of prostate cancer patients at time of initial diagnosis. Front Oncol. 2018;8:623. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2018.00623.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 43.Blanchard P, Faivre L, Lesaunier F, Salem N, Mesgouez-Nebout N, Deniau-Alexandre E, et al. Outcome according to elective pelvic radiation therapy in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer: a secondary analysis of the GETUG 12 phase 3 randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;94:85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.09.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 45.Aizer AA, Yu JB, McKeon AM, Decker RH, Colberg JW, Peschel RE. Whole pelvic radiotherapy versus prostate only radiotherapy in the management of locally advanced or aggressive prostate adenocarcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75:1344–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.12.082.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.Roach M, Moughan J, Lawton CAF, Dicker AP, Zeitzer KL, Gore EM, et al. Sequence of hormonal therapy and radiotherapy field size in unfavourable, localised prostate cancer (NRG/RTOG 9413): long-term results of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:1504–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30528-X.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 47.Daoud MA, Aboelnaga EM, Alashry MS, Fathy S, Aletreby MA. Clinical outcome and toxicity evaluation of simultaneous integrated boost pelvic IMRT/VMAT at different dose levels combined with androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer patients. Onco Targets Ther. 2017;10:4981–8. https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S141224.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 48.Ishii K, Ogino R, Hosokawa Y, Fujioka C, Okada W, Nakahara R, et al. Comparison of dosimetric parameters and acute toxicity after whole-pelvic vs prostate-only volumetric-modulated arc therapy with daily image guidance for prostate cancer. Br J Radiol. 2016;89:20150930. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150930.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 49.White KL, Varrassi E, Routledge JA, Barraclough LH, Livsey JE, McLaughlin J, et al. Does the use of volumetric modulated arc therapy reduce gastrointestinal symptoms after pelvic radiotherapy? Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2018;30:e22–e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2017.10.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 50.Choo MS, Kim M, Ku JH, Kwak C, Kim HH, Jeong CW. Extended versus standard pelvic lymph node dissection in radical prostatectomy on oncological and functional outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:2047–54. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5822-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar