Accuracy of PET-choline in nodal staging of localized very high-risk prostate cancer
https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.4.401
Accepted: October 30, 2022
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Objectives: Localized very high-risk prostate cancer (VHR PCa) has long suffered from the inex-istence of good lymph node staging methods other than invasive surgery, as computed tomogra-phy has low sensitivity for nodal disease. With the rising use of positron emission tomography (PET), it is clinically meaningful to know its value for these patients. Our goal was to evaluate the real-life diagnostic accuracy of PET Choline in nodal staging, comparing it with the gold standard of extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND).
Materials and methods: We reviewed data from a high-volume center, including patients with VHR PCa according to current NCCN guidelines who underwent community 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT; followed by ro-botic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and ePLND between 2010 and 2021.
Results: We included 44 patients and 88 lymph node regions. Among those, 14/44 (31.8%) patients and 20/88 (22.7%) regions had nodal disease present on definitive pathology. In comparison with ePLND, we found a sensitivity of 64.3% (95% CI, 39.2-89.4%), specificity of 83.3% (95% CI, 70.0- 96.7%), PPV of 64.3% (95% CI, 39.2-89.4%), and NPV of 83.3% (95% CI, 70.0-96.7%) for nodal disease on a patient-based analysis; and sensitivity of 35.0% (95% CI, 14.1-60.0%), specificity of 88.2% (95% CI, 80.6-95.9%), PPV of 46.7% (95% CI, 21.4-71.9%), and NPV of 82.2% (95% CI, 73.4-91.0%) on a region-based analysis.
Conclusions: In our view 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT doesn’t meet the criteria to be a standard exam for pre-operative staging for patients with VHR PCa, mostly due to its low sensitivity. However, other radiotracers should continue to be investigated in this setting.
Sundi D, Wang VM, Pierorazio PM, Han M, Bivalacqua TJ, Ball MW, et al. Very-high-risk localized prostate cancer: definition and outcomes. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2013; 17:57-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2013.46
Sundi D, Tosoian JJ, Nyame YA, Alam R, Achim M, Reichard CA, et al. Outcomes of Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: Validation Study From 3 Centers. Cancer. 2019 Feb 1;125(3):391-397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31833
Mottet N, Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, de Santis M, Gillessen S, et al. EAU, EANM, ESTRO, ESUR, ISUP, SIOG: Guidelines on prostate cancer. 2022.
NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. Version 3.2022, consulted 23rd April 2022. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf
Hövels AM, Heesakkers RAM, Adang EM, Jager GJ, Strum S, Hoogeveen, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2008; 63:387-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.022
Umbehr MH, Muntener M, Hany T, Sulser T, Bachmann LM. The role of 11C- choline and 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/CT in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2013; 64:106-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.04.019
Evangelista L, Guttilla A, Zattoni F, Muzzio PC, Zattoni F. Utility of choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for lymph node involve- ment identification in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2013; 63:1040-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.039
Alberts I, Mingels C, Zacho HD, Lanz S, Schoder H, Rominger A, et al. Comparing the clinical performance and cost efficacy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-PSMA-1007 in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer: a Markov chain decision analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021 Nov 13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05620-9
van den Bergh L, Lerute E, Haustermans K, Deroose C, Oyen R, Isebaert S, et al. Final analysis of a prospective trial on functional imaging for nodal staging in patients with prostate cancer at high risk for lymph node involvement. Urol Oncol. 2015 Mar;33(3): 109.e23-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.11.008
Schiavina R, Bianchi L, Bianchi FM, Borghesi M, Pultrone CV, Dababneh H, et al. Preoperative staging with 11C-Choline PET/CT is adequately accurate in patients with very high-risk prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018 Aug;16(4):305-312.e1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2018.05.010
Saramatunga H, Montironi R, True L, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, Humphrey PA, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol. 2011 Jan;24(1):6-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.178
Bianchi L, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Suardi N, Moschini M, Cucchiara V, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: indications, extent and tailored approaches. Urologia. 2017 Feb 3;84(1):9-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5301/uro.5000139
Briganti A, Abdollah F, Nini A, Suardi N, Gallina A, Capitanio U, et al. Performance characteristics of computed tomography in detecting lymph node metastasis in contemporary patients with prostate cancer treated with extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur Urol. 2012 Jun;61(6):1132-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.008
Balboaca SD. Medical diagnostic tests: a review of test anatomy, phases and statistical treatment of data. Comput Math Methods Med. 2019 May 28; 2019:1891569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1891569
Stolzenbach LF, Knipper S, Mandel P, Ascalone L, Deuker M, Thian Z, et al. Oncological outcomes of pathologically organ-confined, lymph node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2021 Apr; 39(4):234.e1-234.e7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.10.010
Hope T, Eiber M, Armstrong W, Juarez R, Murthy V, Lawhn-Heath C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for pelvic nodal metastasis detection prior to radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(11):1635-1642. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.3771
Hofman M, Lawrentschuk N, Francis RJ, Tang C, Vela I, Thomas P, et al. Prostate specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomized, multi-centre study. Lancet. 2020 Apr 11;395(10231):1208-1216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7
Farolfi A, Calderoni L, Mattana F, Mei R, Telo S, Fanti S, et al. Current and emerging clinical applications of PSMA PET diagnostic imaging for prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2021 May 10;62(5):596-604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.257238
Afaq A, Ell PJ, Bomanji JB. Is it time to fund routine NHS usage of PSMA PET CT? Nucl Med Commun. 2019 Oct;40(10):975-979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000001066
Copyright (c) 2022 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Downloads
Citations
