High SUVs Have More Robust Repeatability in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Results from a Prospective Test-Retest Cohort Imaged with 18F-DCFPyL

Rudolf A Werner, Bilêl Habacha, Susanne Lütje, Lena Bundschuh, Takahiro Higuchi, Philipp Hartrampf, Sebastian E Serfling, Thorsten Derlin, Constantin Lapa, Andreas K Buck, Markus Essler, Kenneth J Pienta, Mario A Eisenberger, Mark C Markowski, Laura Shinehouse, Rehab AbdAllah, Ali Salavati, Martin A Lodge, Martin G Pomper, Michael A Gorin, Ralph A Bundschuh, Steven P Rowe, Rudolf A Werner, Bilêl Habacha, Susanne Lütje, Lena Bundschuh, Takahiro Higuchi, Philipp Hartrampf, Sebastian E Serfling, Thorsten Derlin, Constantin Lapa, Andreas K Buck, Markus Essler, Kenneth J Pienta, Mario A Eisenberger, Mark C Markowski, Laura Shinehouse, Rehab AbdAllah, Ali Salavati, Martin A Lodge, Martin G Pomper, Michael A Gorin, Ralph A Bundschuh, Steven P Rowe

Abstract

Objectives: In patients with prostate cancer (PC) receiving prostate-specific membrane antigen- (PSMA-) targeted radioligand therapy (RLT), higher baseline standardized uptake values (SUVs) are linked to improved outcome. Thus, readers deciding on RLT must have certainty on the repeatability of PSMA uptake metrics. As such, we aimed to evaluate the test-retest repeatability of lesion uptake in a large cohort of patients imaged with 18F-DCFPyL.

Methods: In this prospective, IRB-approved trial (NCT03793543), 21 patients with history of histologically proven PC underwent two 18F-DCFPyL PET/CTs within 7 days (mean 3.7, range 1 to 7 days). Lesions in the bone, lymph nodes (LN), and other organs were manually segmented on both scans, and uptake parameters were assessed (maximum (SUVmax) and mean (SUVmean) SUVs), PSMA-tumor volume (PSMA-TV), and total lesion PSMA (TL-PSMA, defined as PSMA - TV × SUVmean)). Repeatability was determined using Pearson's correlations, within-subject coefficient of variation (wCOV), and Bland-Altman analysis.

Results: In total, 230 pairs of lesions (177 bone, 38 LN, and 15 other) were delineated, demonstrating a wide range of SUVmax (1.5-80.5) and SUVmean (1.4-24.8). Including all sites of suspected disease, SUVs had a strong interscan correlation (R 2 ≥ 0.99), with high repeatability for SUVmean and SUVmax (wCOV, 7.3% and 12.1%, respectively). High SUVs showed significantly improved wCOV relative to lower SUVs (P < 0.0001), indicating that high SUVs are more repeatable, relative to the magnitude of the underlying SUV. Repeatability for PSMA-TV and TL-PSMA, however, was low (wCOV ≥ 23.5%). Across all metrics for LN and bone lesions, interscan correlation was again strong (R 2 ≥ 0.98). Moreover, LN-based SUVmean also achieved the best wCOV (3.8%), which was significantly reduced when compared to osseous lesions (7.8%, P < 0.0001). This was also noted for SUVmax (wCOV, LN 8.8% vs. bone 12.0%, P < 0.03). On a compartment-based level, wCOVs for volumetric features were ≥22.8%, demonstrating no significant differences between LN and bone lesions (PSMA-TV, P =0.63; TL-PSMA, P =0.9). Findings on an entire tumor burden level were also corroborated in a hottest lesion analysis investigating the SUVmax of the most intense lesion per patient (R 2, 0.99; wCOV, 11.2%).

Conclusion: In this prospective test-retest setting, SUV parameters demonstrated high repeatability, in particular in LNs, while volumetric parameters demonstrated low repeatability. Further, the large number of lesions and wide distribution of SUVs included in this analysis allowed for the demonstration of a dependence of repeatability on SUV, with higher SUVs having more robust repeatability.

Conflict of interest statement

MGP is a coinventor on a US patent covering 18F-DCFPyL and as such is entitled to a portion of any licensing fees and royalties generated by this technology. This arrangement has been reviewed and approved by the Johns Hopkins University in accordance with its conflict of interest policies. SPR is a consultant for Progenics Pharmaceuticals Inc., the licensee of 18F-DCFPyL. MAG has served as a consultant to Progenics Pharmaceuticals. SPR is a consultant for Progenics Pharmaceuticals. All other authors declare that there is no conflict of interest as well as consent for scientific analysis and publication.

Copyright © 2022 Rudolf A. Werner et al.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Test 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT (a) compared to retest 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT (b). A 59-year old patient afflicted with prostate cancer (Gleason Score 8) referring for staging (prostate-specific antigen level at time of scan, 1.0 ng/ml). Maximum intensity projections of both scans revealed identical DCFPyL-avid lymph node in the pelvis (red arrow).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Test 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT (a) compared to retest 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT (b). A 88-year old patient afflicted with prostate cancer (Gleason Score 7) referring for staging (prostate-specific antigen level at time of scan, 69.55 ng/ml). Maximum intensity projections of both scans revealed an identical DCFPyL-avid lymph node in the skeleton, including the ribs and the pelvis (red arrows).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Correlation (first column), Bland-Altman for absolute values (second column) and Bland-Altman for relative values (third column) of quantitative parameters (first row, maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax); second row, mean standardized uptake values (SUVmean); third row, PSMA-avid tumor volume (PSMA-TV); and fourth row, total-lesion PSMA (TL-PSMA)). Good correlations were found for all parameters. Relative to SUV, volumetric parameters demonstrated larger magnitude of limits as presented by standard deviations on Bland-Altman plots for both absolute and relative values. The wide distribution of SUVs included in this analysis allowed for the demonstration of a dependence of repeatability on SUV, with higher SUVs having more robust repeatability, in particular for relative SUVmax values (top right).

References

    1. Fendler W. P., Ferdinandus J., Czernin J., et al. Impact of68Ga-PSMA-11 PET on the management of recurrent prostate cancer in a prospective single-arm clinical trial. Journal of Nuclear Medicine . 2020;61(12):1793–1799. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.242180.
    1. Fendler W. P., Calais J., Eiber M., et al. Assessment of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET accuracy in localizing recurrent prostate cancer: a prospective single-arm clinical trial. JAMA Oncology . 2019;5(6):856–863. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0096.
    1. Afshar-Oromieh A., Hetzheim H., Kratochwil C., et al. The theranostic PSMA ligand PSMA-617 in the diagnosis of prostate cancer by PET/CT: biodistribution in humans, radiation dosimetry, and first evaluation of tumor lesions. Journal of Nuclear Medicine . 2015;56(11):1697–1705. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.115.161299.
    1. Cho S. Y., Gage K. L., Mease R. C., 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 . 2012;53(12):1883–1891. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.112.104661.
    1. Giesel F. L., Hadaschik B., Cardinale J., et al. F-18 labelled PSMA-1007: biodistribution, radiation dosimetry and histopathological validation of tumor lesions in prostate cancer patients. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging . 2017;44(4):678–688. doi: 10.1007/s00259-016-3573-4.
    1. Oh S. W., Wurzer A., Teoh E. J., et al. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of biodistribution and PET image quality of a novel radiohybrid PSMA,18F-rhPSMA-7, in patients with prostate cancer. Journal of Nuclear Medicine . 2020;61(5):702–709. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.234609.
    1. Szabo Z., Mena E., Rowe S. P., et al. Initial evaluation of [18F]DCFPyL for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET imaging of prostate cancer. Molecular Imaging and Biology . 2015;17(4):565–574. doi: 10.1007/s11307-015-0850-8.
    1. Zukotynski K. A., Emmenegger U., Hotte S., et al. Prospective, single-arm trial evaluating changes in uptake patterns on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted (18)F-DCFPyL PET/CT in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer starting abiraterone or enzalutamide. Journal of Nuclear Medicine . 2021;62(10):1430–1437. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.259069.
    1. Rowe S. P., Campbell S. P., Mana-Ay M., et al. Prospective evaluation of PSMA-targeted (18)F-DCFPyL PET/CT in men with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Journal of Nuclear Medicine . 2020;61(1):58–61. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.226514.
    1. Morris M. J., Rowe S. P., Gorin M. A., et al. Diagnostic performance of18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT in men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer: results from the CONDOR phase III, multicenter study. Clinical Cancer Research . 2021;27(13):3674–3682. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4573.
    1. Pienta K. J., Gorin M. A., Rowe S. P., et al. A phase 2/3 prospective multicenter study of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate specific membrane antigen PET/CT with <sup>18</sup>F-DCFPyL in prostate cancer patients (OSPREY) The Journal of Urology . 2021;206(1):52–61. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001698.
    1. FDA approves second PSMA-targeted PET imaging drug for men with prostate cancer, last assessed July, 8, 2021. .
    1. Hofman M. S., Violet J., Hicks R. J., et al. [(177)Lu]-PSMA-617 radionuclide treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (LuPSMA trial): a single-centre, single-arm, phase 2 study. The Lancet Oncology . 2018;19(6):825–833. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30198-0.
    1. Kurland B. F., Peterson L. M., Shields A. T., et al. Test-retest reproducibility of (18)F-FDG PET/CT uptake in cancer patients within a qualified and calibrated local network. Journal of Nuclear Medicine . 2019;60(5):608–614. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.209544.
    1. Sahakyan K., Li X., Lodge M. A., et al. Semiquantitative parameters in PSMA-targeted PET imaging with [18F]DCFPyL: intrapatient and interpatient variability of normal organ uptake. Molecular Imaging and Biology . 2020;22(1):181–189. doi: 10.1007/s11307-019-01376-9.
    1. Jansen B. H. E., Cysouw M. C. F., Vis A. N., et al. Repeatability of quantitative18F-DCFPyL PET/CT measurements in metastatic prostate cancer. Journal of Nuclear Medicine . 2020;61(9):1320–1325. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.236075.
    1. Zukotynski K. A., Emmenegger U., Hotte S., et al. Prospective, single-arm trial evaluating changes in uptake patterns on prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted (18)F-DCFPyL PET/CT in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer starting Abiraterone or enzalutamide. Journal of Nuclear Medicine . 2021;62(10):1430–1437. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.259069.
    1. Widjaja L., Werner R. A., Ross T. L., Bengel F. M., Derlin T. PSMA expression predicts early biochemical response in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer under 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy. Cancers (Basel). . 2021;13(12):p. 2938. doi: 10.3390/cancers13122938.
    1. Seifert R., Seitzer K., Herrmann K., et al. Analysis of PSMA expression and outcome in patients with advanced prostate cancer receiving177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy. Theranostics. . 2020;10(17):7812–7820. doi: 10.7150/thno.47251.
    1. Fendler W. P., Eiber M., Beheshti M., et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT: joint EANM and SNMMI procedure guideline for prostate cancer imaging: version 1.0. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging . 2017;44(6):1014–1024. doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3670-z.
    1. Werner R. A., Bundschuh R. A., Bundschuh L., et al. Semiquantitative parameters in PSMA-targeted PET imaging with [18F]DCFPyL: impact of tumor burden on normal organ uptake. Molecular Imaging and Biology . 2020;22(1):190–197. doi: 10.1007/s11307-019-01375-w.
    1. Schmuck S., von Klot C. A., Henkenberens C., et al. Initial experience with volumetric (68)Ga-PSMA I&T PET/CT for assessment of whole-body tumor burden as a quantitative imaging biomarker in patients with prostate cancer. Journal of Nuclear Medicine . 2017;58(12):1962–1968. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.193581.
    1. Bland J. M., Altman D. G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet . 1986;1(8476):307–310.
    1. Bland J. M., Altman D. G. Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology . 2003;22(1):85–93. doi: 10.1002/uog.122.
    1. Rupinski M. T., Dunlap W. P. Approximating Pearson product-moment correlations from Kendall's tau and Spearman's rho. Educational and Psychological Measurement . 1996;56(3):419–429. doi: 10.1177/0013164496056003004.
    1. Walker D. A. JMASM9: converting Kendall’s tau for correlational or meta-analytic analyses. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods . 2003;2(2):525–530. doi: 10.22237/jmasm/1067646360.
    1. Accred S. V., Assur Q. Evaluation of the standard deviation from duplicate results. Accreditation and Quality Assurance . 2008;13(6):335–337. doi: 10.1007/s00769-008-0390-x.
    1. Forkman J. Estimator and tests for common coefficients of variation in normal distributions. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods. . 2009;38(2):233–251. doi: 10.1080/03610920802187448.
    1. Hofman M. S., Emmett L., Sandhu S., et al. [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TheraP): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet . 2021;397(10276):797–804. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00237-3.
    1. Sartor A. O., Morris M. J., Messman R., Krause B. J. VISION: an international, prospective, open-label, multicenter, randomized phase III study of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in the treatment of patients with progressive PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) Journal of Clinical Oncology . 2020;38(6_suppl):p. TPS259-TPS. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.6_suppl.TPS259.
    1. Pollard J. H., Raman C., Zakharia Y., et al. Quantitative test-retest measurement of (68)Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC in tumor and normal tissue. Journal of Nuclear Medicine . 2020;61(8):1145–1152. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.236083.
    1. Werner R. A., Derlin T., Lapa C., et al. 18F-labeled, PSMA-targeted radiotracers: leveraging the advantages of radiofluorination for prostate cancer molecular imaging. Theranostics. . 2020;10(1):1–16. doi: 10.7150/thno.37894.
    1. Sanchez-Crespo A. Comparison of Gallium-68 and Fluorine-18 imaging characteristics in positron emission tomography. Applied Radiation and Isotopes . 2013;76:55–62. doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2012.06.034.
    1. Lodge M. A. Repeatability of SUV in oncologic (18)F-FDG PET. Journal of Nuclear Medicine . 2017;58(4):523–532. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.116.186353.
    1. Fanti S., Hadaschik B., Herrmann K. Proposal for systemic-therapy response-assessment criteria at the time of PSMA PET/CT imaging: the PSMA PET progression criteria. Journal of Nuclear Medicine . 2020;61(5):678–682. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.233817.
    1. Widjaja L., Werner R. A., Ross T. L., Bengel F. M., Derlin T. PSMA expression predicts early biochemical response in pa-tients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer under 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy. Cancers (Basel). . 2021;13(12):p. 2938. doi: 10.3390/cancers13122938.
    1. Huang B., Chen Z., Wu P.-M., et al. Fully automated delineation of gross tumor volume for head and neck cancer on PET-CT using deep learning: a dual-center study. Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging . 2018;2018:p. 8923028. doi: 10.1155/2018/8923028.
    1. Khatri W., Chung H. W., Werner R. A., et al. Effect of point-spread function reconstruction for indeterminate PSMA-RADS-3A lesions on PSMA-targeted PET imaging of men with prostate cancer. Diagnostics (Basel). . 2021;11(4):p. 665. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11040665.
    1. Ortega C., Schaefferkoetter J., Veit-Haibach P., et al. 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT in patients with subclinical recurrence of prostate cancer: effect of lesion size, smoothing filter, and partial-volume correction on PROMISE criteria. Journal of Nuclear Medicine . 2020;61(11):1615–1620. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.241737.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다