Short-duration dynamic [18F]DCFPyL PET and CT perfusion imaging to localize dominant intraprostatic lesions in prostate cancer: validation against digital histopathology and comparison to [18F]DCFPyL PET/MR at 120 minutes

Dae-Myoung Yang, Ryan Alfano, Glenn Bauman, Jonathan D Thiessen, Joseph Chin, Stephen Pautler, Madeleine Moussa, Jose A Gomez, Irina Rachinsky, Mena Gaed, Kevin J Chung, Aaron Ward, Ting-Yim Lee, Dae-Myoung Yang, Ryan Alfano, Glenn Bauman, Jonathan D Thiessen, Joseph Chin, Stephen Pautler, Madeleine Moussa, Jose A Gomez, Irina Rachinsky, Mena Gaed, Kevin J Chung, Aaron Ward, Ting-Yim Lee

Abstract

Purpose: Localized prostate cancer (PCa) in patients is characterized by a dominant focus in the gland (dominant intraprostatic lesion, DIL). Accurate DIL identification may enable more accurate diagnosis and therapy through more precise targeting of biopsy, radiotherapy and focal ablative therapies. The goal of this study is to validate the performance of [18F]DCFPyL PET and CT perfusion (CTP) for detecting and localizing DIL against digital histopathological images.

Methods: Multi-modality image sets: in vivo T2-weighted (T2w)-MRI, 22-min dynamic [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT, CTP, and 2-h post-injection PET/MR were acquired in patients prior to radical prostatectomy. The explanted gland with implanted fiducial markers was imaged with T2w-MRI. All images were co-registered to the pathologist-annotated digital images of whole-mount mid-gland histology sections using fiducial markers and anatomical landmarks. Regions of interest encompassing DIL and non-DIL tissue were drawn on the digital histopathological images and superimposed on PET and CTP parametric maps. Logistic regression with backward elimination of parameters was used to select the most sensitive parameter set to distinguish DIL from non-DIL voxels. Leave-one-patient-out cross-validation was performed to determine diagnostic performance.

Results: [18F]DCFPyL PET and CTP parametric maps of 15 patients were analyzed. SUVLate and a model combining Ki and k4 of [18F]DCFPyL achieved the most accurate performance distinguishing DIL from non-DIL voxels. Both detection models achieved an AUC of 0.90 and an error rate of < 10%. Compared to digital histopathology, the detected DILs had a mean dice similarity coefficient of 0.8 for the Ki and k4 model and 0.7 for SUVLate.

Conclusions: We have validated using co-registered digital histopathological images that parameters from kinetic analysis of 22-min dynamic [18F]DCFPyL PET can accurately localize DILs in PCa for targeting of biopsy, radiotherapy, and focal ablative therapies. Short-duration dynamic [18F]DCFPyL PET was not inferior to SUVLate in this diagnostic task.

Clinical trial registration number: NCT04009174 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Keywords: CT perfusion; Dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL); Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA); Tracer kinetic modelling; [18F]DCFPyL.

Conflict of interest statement

The CT perfusion software is licensed to GE Healthcare (Ting-Yim Lee). All other authors have no competing interests to report.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Registration pipeline. CT Computed tomography, T2w transverse relaxation time weighted, PET positron emission tomography, MR magnetic resonance, BF blood flow, BV blood volume, MTT mean transit time, PS vessel permeability surface product, To contrast delay time, K1 influx rate constant, k2 efflux rate constant, k3 binding rate constant, k4 dissociation rate constant, Ki net uptake rate constant, DV distribution volume, SUV standardized uptake value
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow diagram showing patient enrolment. *Registration failed because the in vivo prostate was significantly deformed relative to explanted prostate due to gas in the rectum. FCH Fluorocholine, DCFPyL 2-(3-{1-Carboxy-5-[(6-[18F]fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of leave-one-patient-out cross-validation metrics of the different DIL detection models—error rate (ER), false-positive rate (FPR), false-negative rate (FNR), and AUC. Error bars are the standard deviation of mean. A significant difference (P < 0.05) is marked with asterisk (*) for P < 0.05 and double asterisk (**) for P < 0.001. Ki Net uptake rate constant, k4 dissociation rate constant, SUVLate 2-h post-injection standardized uptake value, SUVEarly 10-min post-injection standardized uptake value, BF blood flow, MTT mean transit time, ER error rate, FPR false-positive rate, FNR false-negative rate, AUC area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic curve, DIL dominant intraprostatic lesion
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Example of the co-registered in vivo images and parametric maps. The location of DIL is outlined in black. CT Computed tomography, PET positron emission tomography, SUVLate 2-h post-injection standardized uptake value, Ki net uptake rate constant, k4 dissociation rate constant, SUVEarly 10-min post-injection standardized uptake value, BF blood flow, BV blood volume, DIL dominant intraprostatic lesion

References

    1. Boutros PC, Fraser M, Harding NJ, et al. Spatial genomic heterogeneity within localized, multifocal prostate cancer. Nat Genet. 2015 doi: 10.1038/ng.3315.
    1. Espiritu SM, Liu LY, Rubanova Y, et al. The evolutionary landscape of localized prostate cancers drives clinical aggression. Cell. 2018 doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.029.
    1. Karavitakis M, Winkler M, Abel P, et al. Histological characteristics of the index lesion in whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens: implications for focal therapy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2011 doi: 10.1038/pcan.2010.16.
    1. Carvalhal GF, Daudi SN, Kan D, et al. Correlation between serum prostate-specific antigen and cancer volume in prostate glands of different sizes. Urology. 2010 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.11.056.
    1. Eichelberger LE, Koch MO, Eble JN, et al. Maximum tumor diameter is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence in prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2005 doi: 10.1038/modpathol.3800405.
    1. von Eyben FE, Kiljunen T, Kangasmaki A, et al. Radiotherapy boost for the dominant intraprostatic cancer lesion—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016 doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2015.12.005.
    1. Zamboglou C, Klein CM, Thomann B, et al. The dose distribution in dominant intraprostatic tumour lesions defined by multiparametric MRI and PSMA PET/CT correlates with the outcome in patients treated with primary radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2018 doi: 10.1186/s13014-018-1014-1.
    1. Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Graham JD, et al. Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007 doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70143-2.
    1. Zietman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slater JD, et al. Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005 doi: 10.1001/jama.294.10.1233.
    1. Drost FJ, Osses DF, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2.
    1. Alfano R, Bauman GS, Liu W, et al. Histologic validation of auto-contoured dominant intraprostatic lesions on [18F] DCFPyL PSMA-PET imaging. Radiother Oncol. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.08.008.
    1. True LD, Chen DL. How accurately does PSMA inhibitor 18F-DCFPyL-PET-CT image prostate cancer? Clin Cancer Res. 2021 doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0749.
    1. Tan N, Oyoyo U, Bavadian N, et al. PSMA-targeted radiotracers versus 18F fluciclovine for the detection of prostate cancer biochemical recurrence after definitive therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2020 doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020191689.
    1. Galgano SJ, Valentin R, McConathy J. Role of PET imaging for biochemical recurrence following primary treatment for prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2018 doi: 10.21037/tau.2018.06.09.
    1. Yang DM, Li F, Bauman G, et al. Kinetic analysis of dominant intraprostatic lesion of prostate cancer using quantitative dynamic [18F]DCFPyL-PET: comparison to [18F] fluorocholine-PET. EJNMMI Res. 2021 doi: 10.1186/s13550-020-00735-w.
    1. Jansen BH, Yaqub M, Voortman J, et al. Simplified methods for quantification of 18F-DCFPyL uptake in patients with prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2019 doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.227520.
    1. Pienta KJ, Gorin MA, Rowe SP, et al. A phase 2/3 prospective multicenter study of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate specific membrane antigen PET/CT with 18F-DCFPyL in prostate cancer patients (OSPREY) J Urol. 2021 doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001698.
    1. Wondergem M, van der Zant FM, Broos WA, Knol RJ. Matched-pair comparison of 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT and 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in 240 prostate cancer patients; inter-reader agreement and lesion detection rate of suspected lesions. J Nucl Med. 2021 doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.258574.
    1. Yang DM, Palma D, Louie A, et al. Assessment of tumour response after stereotactic ablative radiation therapy for lung cancer: a prospective quantitative hybrid 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography and CT perfusion study. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019 doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.12807.
    1. Yang DM, Palma DA, Kwan K, et al. Predicting pathological complete response (pCR) after stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) of lung cancer using quantitative dynamic [18F]FDG PET and CT perfusion: a prospective exploratory clinical study. Radiat Oncol. 2021 doi: 10.1186/s13014-021-01747-z.
    1. Gibson E, Crukley C, Gaed M, et al. Registration of prostate histology images to ex vivo MR images via strand-shaped fiducials. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 doi: 10.1002/jmri.23767.
    1. Lee TY, Purdie TG, Stewart E. CT imaging of angiogenesis. Q J Nucl Med. 2003;47(3):171–187.
    1. Delso G, Fürst S, Jakoby B, et al. Performance measurements of the Siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Nucl Med. 2011 doi: 10.2967/jnumed.111.092726.
    1. Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, et al. User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage. 2006 doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015.
    1. Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001.
    1. Groenendaal G, Borren A, Moman MR, et al. Pathologic validation of a model based on diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for tumor delineation in the prostate peripheral zone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.07.021.
    1. Metzger GJ, Kalavagunta C, Spilseth B, et al. Development of quantitative multiparametric MRI models for prostate cancer detection using registered correlative histopathology. Radiology. 2016 doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015151089.
    1. Gnanapragasam VJ, Barret T, Starling L, et al. Use of the PHI assay as a first line triaging test in an image-guided prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. The PHI in Refining MRI (PRIM) study. Eur Urol Suppl. 2019 doi: 10.1097/01.JU.0000556341.78194.d9.
    1. Monninkhof EM, Van Loon JW, van Vulpen M, et al. Standard whole prostate gland radiotherapy with and without lesion boost in prostate cancer: toxicity in the FLAME randomized controlled trial. Radiother Oncol. 2018 doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.12.022.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa