Impact of PSMA PET on management of biochemical recurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

Abstract

Purpose

Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) is a promising imaging modality for detection of biochemical recurrent prostate cancer (BRPCa). This systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the impact of PSMA PET on the management of BRPCa patients based on prospective studies.

Methods

According to the PRISMA statement, articles in Pubmed and Embase were searched till May 26th, 2020 to identify eligible prospective studies that reported changes in the management of BRPCa patients after PSMA PET assessment. The quality of included studies was accessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The pooled change proportion was calculated according to the type of change (just intended vs. implemented). Meta-regression was used to identify significant factors for heterogeneity.

Results

Eleven publications involving 1580 patients were included. The pooled proportion of management change in BRPCa patients was 61% (95% CI 55–68%) with significant heterogeneity (p < 0.01, I2 = 86%). Six studies involving 1190 patients were summarized in detail. The results showed that after PSMA PET, the proportion of active surveillance and target/localized therapy increased from 16.6 to 20.9%, and from 39.5 to 40.2%, respectively, while the proportion of comprehensive therapy decreased from 41.9 to 36.1%. In addition, the proportion of patients on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (%) at PSMA PET was identified as a significant factor affecting heterogeneity (p = 0.044).

Conclusion

PSMA PET had an impact on the clinical management of BRPCa in 61% patients. A higher proportion ongoing ADT was associated with a higher proportion of management change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. 1.

    Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA-Cancer J Clin 68:394–424

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA et al (2016) 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1415–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC (2003) Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 169:517–523

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kupelian PA, Mahadevan A, Reddy CA, Reuther AM, Klein EA (2006) Use of different definitions of biochemical failure after external beam radiotherapy changes conclusions about relative treatment efficacy for localized prostate cancer. Urology 68:593–598

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Cornford P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 71:630–642

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    De Visschere PJL, Standaert C, Futterer JJ et al (2019) A systematic review on the role of imaging in early recurrent prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2:47–76

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Rauscher I, Duwel C, Haller B et al (2018) Efficacy, predictive factors, and prediction nomograms for (68)Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen-ligand positron-emission tomography/computed tomography in early biochemical recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 73:656–661

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Rowe SP, Macura KJ, Ciarallo A et al (2016) 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. J Nucl Med 57:46–53

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bluemel C, Krebs M, Polat B et al (2016) 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in patients with biochemical prostate cancer recurrence and negative 18F-Choline-PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med 41:515–521

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Han S, Woo S, Kim YJ, Suh CH (2018) Impact of (68)Ga-PSMA PET on the management of patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 74:179–190

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Calais J, Cao M, Nickols NG (2018) The Utility of PET/CT in the planning of external radiation therapy for prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 59:557–567

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Silver DA, Pellicer I, Fair WR, Heston WD, Cordon-Cardo C (1997) Prostate-specific membrane antigen expression in normal and malignant human tissues. Clin Cancer Res 3:81–85

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Perner S, Hofer MD, Kim R et al (2007) Prostate-specific membrane antigen expression as a predictor of prostate cancer progression. Hum Pathol 38:696–701

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Eiber M, Fendler WP, Rowe SP et al (2017) Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Ligands for Imaging and Therapy. J Nucl Med 58:67s–76s

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Farolfi A, Ceci F, Castellucci P, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and PSA <0.5 ng/ml. Efficacy and impact on treatment strategy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 2019;46:11–9.

  16. 16.

    Dietlein F, Kobe C, Neubauer S et al (2017) PSA-Stratified Performance of (18)F- and (68)Ga-PSMA PET in Patients with Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med 58:947–952

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Mena E, Lindenberg ML, Shih JH et al (2018) 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 Imag 45:4–11

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Müller J, Ferraro DA, Muehlematter UJ et al (2019) Clinical impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET on patient management and outcome, including all patients referred for an increase in PSA level during the first year after its clinical introduction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:889–900

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Keane F, Ged Y, Greally M, Maher MA, O’Malley K, McCaffrey J (2018) Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET-CT imaging in the investigation and management of biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 36:208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Grubmuller B, Baltzer P, D’Andrea D et al (2018) (68)Ga-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 Imag 45:235–242

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Frenzel T, Tienken M, Abel M et al (2018) The impact of [68Ga]PSMA I&T PET/CT on radiotherapy planning in patients with prostate cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 194:646–654

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Calais J, Czernin J, Cao M et al (2018) (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT mapping of prostate cancer biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in 270 patients with a PSA level of less than 1.0 ng/ml: impact on salvage radiotherapy planning. J Nucl Med 59:230–237

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Afaq A, Alahmed S, Chen SH et al (2018) Impact of (68)Ga-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen PET/CT on Prostate Cancer Management. J Nucl Med 59:89–92

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Albisinni S, Artigas C, Aoun F et al (2017) 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 120:197–203

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ-Br Med J 339:b2700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ-Br Med J 350:g7647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ-Br Med J 343:d5928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews a new edition of the cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10: 000142.

  29. 29.

    Hope TA, Aggarwal R, Chee B et al (2017) Impact of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET on management in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 58:1956–1961

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ-British Medical Journal 315:629–634

    CAS  PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Rousseau C, Le Thiec M, Ferrer L et al (2019) Preliminary results of a (68) Ga-PSMA PET/CT prospective study in prostate cancer patients with occult recurrence: diagnostic performance and impact on therapeutic decision-making. Prostate 79:1514–1522

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Rousseau E, Wilson D, Lacroix-Poisson F et al (2019) A prospective study on (18)F-DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT imaging in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 60:1587–1593

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Song H, Harrison C, Duan H et al (2019) Prospective evaluation in an academic center of (18)F-DCFPyL PET/CT in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer: a focus on localizing disease and changes in management. J Nucl Med 61:546–551

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Zacho HD, Nielsen JB, Dettmann K et al (2018) 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: a prospective, 2-center study. Clin Nucl Med 43:579–585

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Bianchi L, Schiavina R, Borghesi M et al (2019) How does (68) Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography impact the management of patients with prostate cancer recurrence after surgery? Int J Urol 26:804–811

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Fendler WP, Ferdinandus J, Czernin J, et al. Impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET on the management of recurrent prostate cancer in a prospective single-arm clinical trial. J Nucl Med 2020.

  37. 37.

    Habl G, Sauter K, Schiller K et al (2017) (68) Ga-PSMA-PET for radiation treatment planning in prostate cancer recurrences after surgery: Individualized medicine or new standard in salvage treatment. Prostate 77:920–927

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Kulkarni M, Hughes S, Mallia A et al (2020) The management impact of (68)gallium-tris(hydroxypyridinone) prostate-specific membrane antigen ((68)Ga-THP-PSMA) PET-CT imaging for high-risk and biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 47:674–686

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Roach PJ, Francis R, Emmett L et al (2018) The impact of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT on management intent in prostate cancer: results of an australian prospective multicenter study. J Nucl Med 59:82–88

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Berliner C, Tienken M, Frenzel T et al (2017) Detection rate of PET/CT in patients with biochemical relapse of prostate cancer using [(68)Ga]PSMA I&T and comparison with published data of [(68)Ga]PSMA HBED-CC. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 44:670–677

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Treglia G, Annunziata S, Pizzuto DA, Giovanella L, Prior JO (2019) Detection rate of (18)F-Labeled PSMA PET/CT in biochemical recurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Cancers. 11:710

    CAS  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Emmett L, Yin C, Crumbaker M et al (2019) Rapid modulation of PSMA expression by androgen deprivation: serial (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET in men with hormone-sensitive and castrate-resistant prostate cancer commencing androgen blockade. J Nucl Med 60:950–954

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Deandreis D, Guarneri A, Ceci F et al (2020) (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in recurrent hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC): a prospective single-centre study in patients eligible for salvage therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 47:2804–2815

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Afshar-Oromieh A, Holland-Letz T, Giesel FL et al (2017) Diagnostic performance of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: evaluation in 1007 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mo Imaging 44:1258–1268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Giovacchini G (2011) Do we have to withdraw antiandrogenic therapy in prostate cancer patients before PET/CT with [11C]choline? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 38:1964–1966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Fendler WP, Weber M (2019) Prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography in men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 25:7448–7454

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    van Leeuwen PJ, Donswijk M, Nandurkar R (2019) Gallium-68-prostate-specific membrane antigen ((68) Ga-PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) predicts complete biochemical response from radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 124:62–68

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Ferraro DA, Garcia Schuler HI, Muehlematter UJ et al (2020) 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 Mol Imaging 47:652–664

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Carrie C, Magne N, Burban-Provost P et al (2019) Short-term androgen deprivation therapy combined with radiotherapy as salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 16): a 112-month follow-up of a phase 3, randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 20:1740–1749

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Bouchelouche K, Choyke PL (2018) Advances in prostate-specific membrane antigen PET of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 30:89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Heck MM, Retz M, Tauber R, Knorr K, Kratochwil C (2017) Eiber M [PSMA-targeted radioligand therapy in prostate cancer]. Urologe A 56:32–39

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Baum RP, Kulkarni HR, Schuchardt C et al (2016) 177Lu-Labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen radioligand therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: safety and efficacy. J Nucl Med 57:1006–1013

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81972405) and Shanghai Committee of Science and Technology, China (No.18411960100).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

DX had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: DX and AL. Acquisition of data: MZ and HH. Analysis and interpretation of data: HH and LC. Drafting of the manuscript: AL and LC. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: BL and DX. Statistical analysis: WL and XR. Obtaining funding: DX and BL. Administrative, technical, or material support: CZ. Supervision: AL and XR. Other: None.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Biao Li or Danfeng Xu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Financial disclosures

None to declare.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Danfen Xu and Biao Li had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 66 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, A., Chen, L., Zhang, M. et al. Impact of PSMA PET on management of biochemical recurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Clin Transl Imaging 9, 95–108 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-020-00406-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Prostate cancer
  • Biochemical recurrence
  • Positron emission tomography
  • Prostate-specific membrane antigen
  • Meta-analysis