False positive PSMA PET for tumor remnants in the irradiated prostate and other interpretation pitfalls in a prospective multi-center trial

Wolfgang P Fendler, Jeremie Calais, Matthias Eiber, Jeffrey P Simko, John Kurhanewicz, Romelyn Delos Santos, Felix Y Feng, Robert E Reiter, Matthew B Rettig, Nicholas G Nickols, Amar U Kishan, PSMA PET Reader Group, Roger Slavik, Peter R Carroll, Courtney Lawhn-Heath, Ken Herrmann, Johannes Czernin, Thomas A Hope, Okamoto Shozo, Louise Emmett, Helle D Zacho, Harun Ilhan, Christoph Rischpler, Axel Wetter, Heiko Schoder, Irene A Burger, Wolfgang P Fendler, Jeremie Calais, Matthias Eiber, Jeffrey P Simko, John Kurhanewicz, Romelyn Delos Santos, Felix Y Feng, Robert E Reiter, Matthew B Rettig, Nicholas G Nickols, Amar U Kishan, PSMA PET Reader Group, Roger Slavik, Peter R Carroll, Courtney Lawhn-Heath, Ken Herrmann, Johannes Czernin, Thomas A Hope, Okamoto Shozo, Louise Emmett, Helle D Zacho, Harun Ilhan, Christoph Rischpler, Axel Wetter, Heiko Schoder, Irene A Burger

Abstract

Purpose: Readers need to be informed about potential pitfalls of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET interpretation.

Methods: Here we report [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET findings discordant with the histopathology/composite reference standard in a recently published prospective trial on 635 patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer.

Results: Consensus reads were false positive in 20 regions of 17/217 (8%) patients with lesion validation. Majority of the false positive interpretations (13 of 20, 65%) occurred in the context of suspected prostate (bed) relapse (T) after radiotherapy (n = 11); other false positive findings were noted for prostate bed post prostatectomy (T, n = 2), pelvic nodes (N, n = 2), or extra pelvic lesions (M, n = 5). Major sources of false positive findings were PSMA-expressing residual adenocarcinoma with marked post-radiotherapy treatment effect. False negative interpretation occurred in 8 regions of 6/79 (8%) patients with histopathology validation, including prostate (bed) (n = 5), pelvic nodes (n = 1), and extra pelvic lesions (n = 2). Lesions were missed mostly due to small metastases or adjacent bladder/urine uptake.

Conclusion: [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET at biochemical recurrence resulted in less than 10% false positive interpretations. Post-radiotherapy prostate uptake was a major source of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET false positivity. In few cases, PET correctly detects residual PSMA expression post-radiotherapy, originating however from treated, benign tissue or potentially indolent tumor remnants.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02940262 and NCT03353740.

Keywords: Interpretation; PET; PSMA; Pitfall; Radiotherapy; Recurrence.

Conflict of interest statement

Wolfgang P. Fendler was a consultant for Ipsen, Endocyte, and BTG, and he received personal fees from RadioMedix outside of the submitted work. Jeremie Calais reports consulting activities for Blue Earth Diagnostics, Curium Pharma, GE Healthcare, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Radiomedix, and Telix Pharmaceuticals outside of the submitted work. Matthias Eiber is consultant for ABX and Blue Earth Diagnostics. Johannes Czernin is a founder, board member, and holds equity in Sofie Biosciences and Trethera Therapeutics. Intellectual property patented by the University of California is licensed to Sofie Biosciences and Trethera Therapeutics. Johannes Czernin serves on the medical advisory board of Actinium and is a member of the VISION trial steering committee, a clinical trial sponsored by Endocyte. Thomas Hope is a consultant for GE Healthcare and Ipsen and receives grant support from GE Healthcare. Matthew Rettig is speaker and advisory board member for Janssen and receives research funding from Novartis. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article have been disclosed.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
70-year-old man post-radiotherapy 10 years prior, who demonstrates focal [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 uptake in the right medial prostate (a, circle; b) (PSA 2.6 ng/mL, CT FP 3). Trans-anal ultrasound guided core needle biopsy demonstrated no evidence of viable tumor. The specimen in the region of the focal uptake (SUVmax 9.1) demonstrated marked radiation changes in residual benign glands (d, dotted circle), cancer with treatment effect including balloon cells (e, black arrows), and cells with marked PSMA expression (c and f, black arrows). Adjacent benign glands did not demonstrate PSMA expression (c, black arrow heads)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
74-year-old man post-radiotherapy performed 10 months prior with biochemical recurrence who had focal uptake on the right peripheral zone of the prostate (a, circle) (PSA 7.2 ng/mL, MRI FP 7). Neither T2 weighted imaging (b, arrow), dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) imaging or diffusion weighted imaging demonstrated a focal lesion to correlate with the focal uptake (SUVmax 12.5) seen on [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11. Trans-anal ultrasound guided core needle biopsy was obtained from the region of uptake. Pathology demonstrates tumor cells with significant treatment effect (c) and marked PSMA expression (d). There was no evidence of PSMA expression in vasculature
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
68-year-old man post-radiotherapy therapy with focal uptake (SUVmax 13.0) noted in the right hilum on [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET (a and c, circle) (PSA 4.7 ng/mL, MRI FP 8). Single shot fast spin echo (b) does not visualize the lesion highlighting limitations of PET/MRI for characterization of small lung findings. Transbronchial biopsy demonstrates cuboidal epithelium (d) with adjacent prominent glands typical for a bronchogenic cyst.

References

    1. Han S, Woo S, Kim YJ, Suh CH. Impact of (68)Ga-PSMA PET on the management of patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2018;74(2):179–190. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.030.
    1. von Eyben FE, Picchio M, von Eyben R, Rhee H, Bauman G. (68)Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography/computed tomography for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2016. 10.1016/j.euf.2016.11.002.
    1. Perera M, Papa N, Roberts M, Williams M, Udovicich C, Vela I, et al. Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer-updated diagnostic utility, sensitivity, specificity, and distribution of prostate-specific membrane antigen-avid lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2019. 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.01.049.
    1. Fendler WP, Calais J, Eiber M, Flavell RR, Mishoe A, Feng FY, et al. Assessment of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET accuracy in localizing recurrent prostate cancer: a prospective single-arm clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0096.
    1. Calais J, Ceci F, Eiber M, Hope TA, Hofman MS, Rischpler C, et al. (18)F-fluciclovine PET-CT and (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT in patients with early biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: a prospective, single-centre, single-arm, comparative imaging trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(9):1286–1294. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30415-2.
    1. Calais J, Czernin J, Fendler WP, Elashoff D, Nickols NG. Randomized prospective phase III trial of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT molecular imaging for prostate cancer salvage radiotherapy planning [PSMA-SRT] BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s12885-018-5200-1.
    1. Fendler WP, Calais J, Allen-Auerbach M, Bluemel C, Eberhardt N, Emmett L, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT interobserver agreement for prostate cancer assessments: an international multicenter prospective study. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(10):1617–1623. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.190827.
    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):469–478. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.198119.
    1. Bostwick DG, Meiers I. Diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma after therapy. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(3):360–371. doi: 10.1043/1543-2165(2007)131[360:DOPCAT];2.
    1. Crook JM, Bahadur YA, Robertson SJ, Perry GA, Esche BA. Evaluation of radiation effect, tumor differentiation, and prostate specific antigen staining in sequential prostate biopsies after external beam radiotherapy for patients with prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 1997;79(1):81–89. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19970101)79:1<81::AID-CNCR12>;2-2.
    1. Crook J, Malone S, Perry G, Bahadur Y, Robertson S, Abdolell M. Postradiotherapy prostate biopsies: what do they really mean? Results for 498 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48(2):355–367. doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(00)00637-4.
    1. Evans AJ. Treatment effects in prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2018;31(S1):S110–S121. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2017.158.
    1. Zelefsky MJ, Goldman DA, Reuter V, Kollmeier M, McBride S, Zhang Z, et al. Long-term implications of a positive posttreatment biopsy in patients treated with external beam radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2019;201(6):1127–1133. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000110.
    1. Crook JM, Malone S, Perry G, Eapen L, Owen J, Robertson S, et al. Twenty-four-month postradiation prostate biopsies are strongly predictive of 7-year disease-free survival: results from a Canadian randomized trial. Cancer. 2009;115(3):673–679. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24020.
    1. Zaorsky NG, Shaikh T, Murphy CT, Hallman MA, Hayes SB, Sobczak ML, et al. Comparison of outcomes and toxicities among radiation therapy treatment options for prostate cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2016;48:50–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.06.006.
    1. Ploussard G, Almeras C, Briganti A, Giannarini G, Hennequin C, Ost P, et al. Management of node only recurrence after primary local treatment for prostate Cancer: a systematic review of the literature. J Urol. 2015;194(4):983–988. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.04.103.
    1. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313(4):390–397. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.17942.
    1. Jilg CA, Drendel V, Rischke HC, Beck T, Vach W, Schaal K, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Ga-68-HBED-CC-PSMA-ligand-PET/CT before salvage lymph node dissection for recurrent prostate Cancer. Theranostics. 2017;7(6):1770–1780. doi: 10.7150/thno.18421.
    1. Fennessy N, Lee J, Shin J, Ho B, Ali SA, Paschkewitz R, et al. Frusemide aids diagnostic interpretation of (68) Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/CT in men with prostate cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2017;61(6):739–744. doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.12625.
    1. Iravani A, Hofman MS, Mulcahy T, Williams S, Murphy D, Parameswaran BK, et al. (68)Ga PSMA-11 PET with CT urography protocol in the initial staging and biochemical relapse of prostate cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2017;17(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s40644-017-0133-5.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere