Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical impact of PSMA-based 18F–DCFBC PET/CT imaging in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after primary local therapy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of our study was to assess 18F–DCFBC PET/CT, a PSMA targeted PET agent, for lesion detection and clinical management of biochemical relapse in prostate cancer patients after primary treatment.

Methods

This is a prospective IRB-approved study of 68 patients with documented biochemical recurrence after primary local therapy consisting of radical prostatectomy (n = 50), post radiation therapy (n = 9) or both (n = 9), with negative conventional imaging. All 68 patients underwent whole-body 18F–DCFBC PET/CT, and 62 also underwent mpMRI within one month. Lesion detection with 18F–DCFBC was correlated with mpMRI findings and pre-scan PSA levels. The impact of 18F–DCFBC PET/CT on clinical management and treatment decisions was established after 6 months’ patient clinical follow-up.

Results

Forty-one patients (60.3%) showed at least one positive 18F–DCFBC lesion, for a total of 79 lesions, 30 in the prostate bed, 39 in lymph nodes, and ten in distant sites. Tumor recurrence was confirmed by either biopsy (13/41 pts), serial CT/MRI (8/41) or clinical follow-up (15/41); there was no confirmation in five patients, who continue to be observed. The 18F–DCFBC and mpMRI findings were concordant in 39 lesions (49.4%), and discordant in 40 lesions (50.6%); the majority (n = 32/40) of the latter occurring because the recurrence was located outside the mpMRI field of view. 18F–DCFBC PET positivity rates correlated with PSA values and 15%, 46%, 83%, and 77% were seen in patients with PSA values <0.5, 0.5 to <1.0, 1.0 to <2.0, and ≥2.0 ng/mL, respectively. The optimal cut-off PSA value to predict a positive 18F–DCFBC scan was 0.78 ng/mL (AUC = 0.764). A change in clinical management occurred in 51.2% (21/41) of patients with a positive 18F–DCFBC result, generally characterized by starting a new treatment in 19 patients or changing the treatment plan in two patients.

Conclusions

18F–DCFBC detects recurrences in 60.3% of a population of patients with biochemical recurrence, but results are dependent on PSA levels. Above a threshold PSA value of 0.78 ng/mL, 18F–DCFBC was able to identify recurrence with high reliability. Positive 18F–DCFBC PET imaging led clinicians to change treatment strategy in 51.2% of patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;59(4):572–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pfister D, Bolla M, Briganti A, Carroll P, Cozzarini C, Joniau S, et al. Early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1034–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Briganti A, Karnes RJ, Gandaglia G, Spahn M, Gontero P, Tosco L, et al. Natural history of surgically treated high-risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(4):163 e7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Punnen S, Cooperberg MR, D'Amico AV, Karakiewicz PI, Moul JW, Scher HI, et al. Management of biochemical recurrence after primary treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):905–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Eisenberger M, Dorey FJ, Walsh PC, et al. Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2005;294(4):433–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Choueiri TK, Dreicer R, Paciorek A, Carroll PR, Konety B. A model that predicts the probability of positive imaging in prostate cancer cases with biochemical failure after initial definitive local therapy. J Urol. 2008;179(3):906–10. discussion 10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rouviere O, Vitry T, Lyonnet D. Imaging of prostate cancer local recurrences: why and how? Eur Radiol. 2010;20(5):1254–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Novo JF, Lopez SP, Aguilo FL, Miranda EF. Diagnostic methodology for the biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after brachytherapy. Arch Esp Urol. 2006;59(10):1063–7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bostwick DG, Pacelli A, Blute M, Roche P, Murphy GP. Prostate specific membrane antigen expression in prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma: a study of 184 cases. Cancer. 1998;82(11):2256–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Rowe SP, Gorin MA, Allaf ME, Pienta KJ, Tran PT, Pomper MG, et al. PET imaging of prostate-specific membrane antigen in prostate cancer: current state of the art and future challenges. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19(3):223–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rowe SP, Gage KL, Faraj SF, Macura KJ, Cornish TC, Gonzalez-Roibon N, et al. (1)(8)F-DCFBC PET/CT for PSMA-based detection and characterization of primary prostate cancer. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2015;56(7):1003–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rowe SP, Macura KJ, Ciarallo A, Mena E, Blackford A, Nadal R, et al. Comparison of prostate-specific membrane antigen-based 18F-DCFBC PET/CT to conventional imaging modalities for detection of hormone-naive and castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2016;57(1):46–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cho SY, Gage KL, Mease RC, Senthamizhchelvan S, Holt DP, Jeffrey-Kwanisai A, et al. Biodistribution, tumor detection, and radiation dosimetry of 18F-DCFBC, a low-molecular-weight inhibitor of prostate-specific membrane antigen, in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2012;53(12):1883–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME, Perkins AE, Kolthammer J, Karp JS. Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nuclear Med Off Publ Soc Nuclear Med. 2007;48(3):471–80.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mease RC, Dusich CL, Foss CA, Ravert HT, Dannals RF, Seidel J, et al. N-[N-[(S)-1,3-Dicarboxypropyl]carbamoyl]-4-[18F]fluorobenzyl-L-cysteine, [18F]DCFBC: a new imaging probe for prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(10):3036–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, Bernardo M, Pang Y, McKinney YL, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 2010;255(1):89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Choo R. Salvage radiotherapy for patients with PSA relapse following radical prostatectomy: issues and challenges. Cancer Res Treat. 2010;42(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ceci F, Uprimny C, Nilica B, Geraldo L, Kendler D, Kroiss A, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT for restaging recurrent prostate cancer: which factors are associated with PET/CT detection rate? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(8):1284–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Afshar-Oromieh A, Avtzi E, Giesel FL, Holland-Letz T, Linhart HG, Eder M, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT imaging with the (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand HBED-CC in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(2):197–209.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M, Beer AJ, Ruffani A, Haller B, et al. Evaluation of hybrid (6)(8)Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nuclear Med Off Publ Soc Nuclear Med. 2015;56(5):668–74.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Afshar-Oromieh A, Zechmann CM, Malcher A, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Linhart HG, et al. Comparison of PET imaging with a (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and (18)F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(1):11–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Einspieler I, Rauscher I, Duwel C, Kronke M, Rischpler C, Habl G, et al. Detection efficacy of hybrid 68Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence after primary radiation therapy defined by Phoenix criteria. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2017.

  24. Szabo Z, Mena E, Rowe SP, Plyku D, Nidal R, Eisenberger MA, et al. Initial evaluation of [(18)F]DCFPyL for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET imaging of prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2015;17(4):565–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Dietlein M, Kobe C, Kuhnert G, Stockter S, Fischer T, Schomacker K, et al. Comparison of [(18)F]DCFPyL and [ (68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC for PSMA-PET imaging in patients with relapsed prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2015;17(4):575–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Albisinni S, Artigas C, Aoun F, Biaou I, Grosman J, Gil T, et al. Clinical impact of 68 Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with prostate cancer with rising prostate-specific antigen after treatment with curative intent: preliminary analysis of a multidisciplinary approach. BJU Int. 2016.

  27. Sterzing F, Kratochwil C, Fiedler H, Katayama S, Habl G, Kopka K, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT: a new technique with high potential for the radiotherapeutic management of prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(1):34–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This project has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under Contract No. HHSN261200800001E. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Esther Mena, Maria L. Lindenberg, Ethan Bergvall, Anita T. Ton, Yolanda McKinney, Philip Eclarinal, Peter L. Choyke & Baris Turkbey

  2. Division of Cancer treatment and Diagnosis: Biometric Research Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Joanna H. Shih

  3. Clinical Research Directorate/Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., National Cancer Institute, Campus at Frederick, Frederick, MD, USA

    Stephen Adler, Stephanie Harmon, Juanita Weaver & Alicia Forest

  4. Radiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research. National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Deborah Citrin

  5. Genitourinary Malignancies Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

    William Dahut

  6. Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Frederick, MD, USA

    George Afari & Sibaprasad Bhattacharyya

  7. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Ronnie C. Mease & Martin G. Pomper

  8. Laboratory of Pathology, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Maria J. Merino

  9. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Peter Pinto

  10. Center for Interventional Oncology, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Bradford J. Wood

  11. Cancer Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Rockville, MD, USA

    Paula Jacobs

Authors
  1. Esther Mena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria L. Lindenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joanna H. Shih
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen Adler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephanie Harmon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ethan Bergvall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Deborah Citrin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. William Dahut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Anita T. Ton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yolanda McKinney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Juanita Weaver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Philip Eclarinal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Alicia Forest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. George Afari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Sibaprasad Bhattacharyya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Ronnie C. Mease
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Maria J. Merino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Peter Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Bradford J. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Paula Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Martin G. Pomper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Peter L. Choyke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Baris Turkbey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esther Mena.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOC 79 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mena, E., Lindenberg, M.L., Shih, J.H. et al. Clinical impact of PSMA-based 18F–DCFBC PET/CT imaging in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after primary local therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45, 4–11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3818-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3818-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation