18F-DCFPyL PET/CT in advanced high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer: A prospective pilot study

Ur Metser, Roshini Kulanthaivelu, Tanya Chawla, Sarah Johnson, Lisa Avery, Douglas Hussey, Patrick Veit-Haibach, Marcus Bernardini, Liat Hogen, Ur Metser, Roshini Kulanthaivelu, Tanya Chawla, Sarah Johnson, Lisa Avery, Douglas Hussey, Patrick Veit-Haibach, Marcus Bernardini, Liat Hogen

Abstract

Objectives: Glutamate carboxypeptidase-II (GCP-II), a zinc metalloenzyme that resides in cell membrane, has been reported as overexpressed in the neovasculature of ovarian cancers. The study objective was to determine whether GCP-II targeted imaging with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT can detect disease sites in women with advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC).

Materials and methods: Twenty treatment-naïve women with advanced HGSOC were recruited (median age 60 years). Prior to commencing therapy (primary cytoreductive surgery [n=9] or neoadjuvant chemotherapy [n=11]), subjects underwent routine staging with contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT (=CT), followed by 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT (=PET). CT and PET were reported independently using a standardized reporting template assessing 25 sites. The performance of PET was compared to CT in all subjects and to surgery and surgical histopathology in 9 patients who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery.

Results: Of the 25 sites assessed in 20 patients, CT detected disease in 292/500 (58.4%) locations and PET detected disease in 171/500 (34.2%). Compared to CT the sensitivity (95% CI) of PET to detect disease in the upper abdomen, the gastrointestinal tract or the peritoneum was 0.29 (0.20,0.40), 0.21 (0.11,0.33) and 0.74 (0.64,0.82), respectively. In the surgical cohort, 220 sites in 9 patients were evaluated. The sensitivity and specificity of CT and PET were 0.85 versus 0.54 (p<0.001) and 0.73 versus 0.93 (p<0.001), respectively.

Conclusion: Although 18F-DCFPyL has higher specificity than CT in detecting advanced HGSOC tumor sites, it detects less disease sites than CT, especially in the upper abdomen and along the gastrointestinal tract, likely limiting its clinical utility.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03811899.

Keywords: 18F-DCFPyL; CT; PET/CT; PSMA; diagnostic performance; ovarian cancer.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2022 Metser, Kulanthaivelu, Chawla, Johnson, Avery, Hussey, Veit-Haibach, Bernardini and Hogen.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Plot showing lesion detection by site for each of the 9 patients who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery. Blue background and pink background denote negative or positive station according to reference standard, respectively. A circle notes positive on CT and cross notes positive on PET.
Figure 3
Figure 3
68-year old with stage IIIC high-grade serous ovarian cancer. (A) Maximum Intensity Projection image of 18F-DCFPyL shows mild to moderate radiotracer uptake in omental metastases (solid arrows) and moderate radiotracer uptake in pelvic peritoneal metastases (dotted arrows). (B) Coronal contrast enhanced CT image shows peritoneal deposits in the posterior cul-de-sac (arrow). (C) Coronal PET/CT image (CT - left, fused PET/CT image – middle; PET – right) corresponding to B shows moderately radiotracer uptake in same metastatic deposit (concordant CT and PET). Metastatic disease was confirmed at surgery. (D) Coronal contrast enhanced CT image shows metastatic disease on right diaphragm (dotted arrow) and along capsular surface of liver (solid arrow). (E) Coronal PET/CT image (CT - left, fused PET/CT image – middle; PET – right) corresponding to D show no focal radiotracer uptake visible on right diaphragm or liver capsule. Surgical pathology confirmed CT findings of metastatic disease at these sites. (F) Coronal contrast enhanced CT image shows focal thickening along right lateral wall of ascending colon (short arrows), suspected to represented serosal metastasis. (G) Coronal PET/CT image (CT - left, fused PET/CT image – middle; PET – right) corresponding to F shows no focal radiotracer uptake on the serosal surface of the ascending colon. No serosal disease on surface of the right colon was found at surgery.

References

    1. Momenimovahed Z, Tiznobaik A, Taheri S, Salehiniya H. Ovarian cancer in the world: Epidemiology and risk factors. Int J Womens Health (2019) 11:287–99. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S197604
    1. Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, Trimble EL. Montz FJ survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: A meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol (2002) 20:1248–59. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.5.1248
    1. Vergote I, Tropé CG, Amant F, Kristensen GB, Ehlen T, Johnson N, et al. . Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary surgery in stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med (2010) 363:943–53. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908806
    1. du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, Harter P, Ray-Coquard I, Pfisterer J. Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: A combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials. Cancer (2009) 115:1234–44. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24149
    1. Rose PG, Nerenstone S, Brady MF, Clarke-Pearson D, Olt G, Rubin SC, et al. . Secondary surgical cytoreduction for advanced ovarian carcinoma. N Engl J Med (2004) 351:2544–6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa041125
    1. Dowdy SC, Mullany SA, Brandt KR, Huppert BJ, Cliby WA. The utility of computed tomography scans in predicting suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in women with advanced ovarian cancer. Cancer (2004) 101:346–52. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20376
    1. Metser U, Jones C, Jacks LM, Bernardini MQ, Ferguson S. Identification and quantification of peritoneal metastases in patients with ovarian cancer with multidetector computed tomography: Correlation with surgery and surgical outcome. Int J Gynecol Cancer (2011) 21(8):1391–8. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31822925c0
    1. De Iaco P, Musto A, Orazi L, Zamagni C, Rosati M, Allegri V, et al. . FDG-PET/CT in advanced ovarian cancer staging: Value and pitfalls in detecting lesions in different abdominal and pelvic quadrants compared with laparoscopy. Eur J Radiol (2011) 80(2):e98–103. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.07.013
    1. Healy JC. Detection of peritoneal metastases. Cancer Imaging (2001) 1(2):4–12. doi: 10.1102/1470-7330.2001.002
    1. Han S, Woo S, Suh CH, Lee JJ. Performance of pre-treatment 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for detecting metastasis in ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gynecol Oncol (2018) 29(6):e98. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e98
    1. Lopez-Lopez V, Cascales-Campos PA, Gil J, Frutos L, Andrade RJ, Fuster-Quiñonero M, et al. . Use of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the preoperative evaluation of patients diagnosed with peritoneal carcinomatosis of ovarian origin, candidates to cytoreduction and hipec. A pending issue. Eur J Radiol (2016) 85(10):1824–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.08.006
    1. Metser U, Zukotynski K, Mak V, Langer D, MacCrostie P, Finelli A, et al. . Effect of 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT on the management of patients with recurrent prostate cancer: Results of a prospective multicenter registry trial. Radiology (2022) 303(2):414–22. doi: 10.1148/radiol.211824
    1. Emmett L, van Leeuwen PJ, Nandurkar R, Scheltema MJ, Cusick T, Hruby G, et al. . Treatment outcomes from 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT-informed salvage radiation treatment in men with rising PSA after radical prostatectomy: Prognostic value of a negative PSMA PET. J Nucl Med (2017) 58(12):1972–6. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.196683
    1. Roach PJ, Francis R, Emmett L, Hsiao E, Kneebone A, Hruby G, et al. . The impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT on management intent in prostate cancer: Results of an Australian prospective multicenter study. J Nucl Med (2018) 59(1):82–8. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.197160
    1. Fendler WP, Calais J, Allen-Auerbach M, Bluemel C, Eberhardt N, Emmett L, et al. . 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT interobserver agreement for prostate cancer assessments: An international multicenter prospective study. J Nucl Med (2017) 58(10):1617–23. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.190827
    1. van Leeuwen PJ, Stricker P, Hruby G, Kneebone A, Ting F, Thompson B, et al. . (68) Ga-PSMA has a high detection rate of prostate cancer recurrence outside the prostatic fossa in patients being considered for salvage radiation treatment. BJU Int (2016) 117(5):732–9. doi: 10.1111/bju.13397
    1. Giesel FL, Knorr K, Spohn F, Will L, Maurer T, Flechsig P, et al. . Detection efficacy of [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT in 251 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med (2019) 60(3):362–8. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.212233
    1. Schmidt-Hegemann NS, Stief C, Kim TH, Eze C, Kirste S, Strouthos I, et al. . Outcome after PSMA PET/CT based salvage radiotherapy in patients with biochemical recurrenceafter radical prostatectomy: A bi-institutional retrospective analysis. J Nucl Med (2019) 60(2):227–33. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.212563
    1. Gorin MA, Pienta KJ, Pomper MG, Rowe SP. Prostate cancer local recurrence detected with both 18F-fluciclovine and PSMA-targeted 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT. Urology (2017) 107:e9–e10. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.06.015
    1. Chen Y, Pullambhatla M, Foss CA, Byun Y, Nimmagadda S, Senthamizhchelvan S, et al. . 2-(3-{1-Carboxy-5-[(6-[18F]fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid, [18F]DCFPyL, a PSMA-based PET imaging agent for prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res (2011) 17(24):7645–553. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1357
    1. Dietlein M, Kobe C, Kuhnert G, Stockter S, Fischer T, Schomäcker K, et al. . Comparison of [18F]DCFPyL and [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC for PSMA-PET imaging in patients with relapsed prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol (2015) 17:575–84. doi: 10.1007/s11307-015-0866-0
    1. Basso Dias A, Finelli A, Bauman G, Veit-Haibach P, Berlin A, Ortega C, et al. . Impact of 18F-DCFPyL PET on staging and treatment of unfavorable intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer. Radiology (2022) 304(3):600–8. doi: 10.1148/radiol.211836
    1. Wernicke AG, Kim S, Liu H, Bander NH, Pirog EC. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression in the neovasculature of gynecologic malignancies: Implications for PSMA-targeted therapy. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol (2017) 25(4):271–6. doi: 10.1097/PAI.0000000000000297
    1. Nougaret S, Addley HC, Colombo PE, Fujii S, Al Sharif SS, Tirumani SH, et al. . Ovarian carcinomatosis: How the radiologist can help plan the surgical approach. RadioGraphics (2012) 32(6):1775–800. doi: 10.1148/rg.326125511
    1. Eiber M, Herrmann K, Calais J, Hadaschik B, Giesel FL, Hartenbach M, et al. . Prostate cancer molecular imaging standardized evaluation (PROMISE): Proposed miTNM classification for the interpretation of PSMA-ligand PET/CT. J Nucl Med (2018) 59(3):469–78. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.198119
    1. Collett D. Modelling binary data, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; (1999) p. 45–101.
    1. Smith PJ, Hadgu A. Sensitivity and specificity for correlated observations. Stat Med (1992) 11(11):1503–9. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780111108
    1. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis, 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; (2002) p. 14–27.
    1. Aide N, Poulain L, Elie N, Briand M, Giffard F, Blanc-Fournier C, et al. . A PSMA-targeted theranostic approach is unlikely to be efficient in serous ovarian cancers. EJNMMI Res (2021) 9;11(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s13550-021-00756-z
    1. Kehoe S, Hook J, Nankivell M, Jayson GC, Kitchener H, Lopes T, et al. . Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): An open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet (2015) 386:249–57. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62223-6
    1. Onda T, Satoh T, Ogawa G, Saito T, Kasamatsu T, Nakanishi T, et al. . Comparison of treatment invasiveness between upfront debulking surgery versus interval debulking surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III/IV ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers in a phase III randomised trial: Japan clinical oncology group study JCOG0602. Eur J Cancer (2016) 64:22–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.05.017
    1. Fagotti A, Ferrandina MG, Vizzielli G, Pasciuto T, Fanfani F, Gallotta V, et al. . Randomized trial of primary debulking surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (SCORPION-NCT01461850). Int J Gynecol Cancer (2020) 30:1657–64. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001640
    1. Tsonis O, Gkrozou F, Vlachos K, Paschopoulos M, Mitsis MC, Zakynthinakis-Kyriakou N, et al. . Upfront debulking surgery for high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma: Current evidence. Ann Transl Med (2020) 8(24):1707. doi: 10.21037/atm-20-1620
    1. Sartor O, de Bono J, Chi KN, Fizazi K, Herrmann K, Rahbar K, et al. . Lutetium-177-PSMA-617 for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med (2021) 385(12):1091–103. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2107322

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다