A Prospective Comparison of <sup>18</sup>F-Sodium Fluoride PET/CT and PSMA-Targeted <sup>18</sup>F-DCFBC PET/CT in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.
prospective_cohort · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 29602821.
- Also identified by DOI 10.2967/jnumed.117.207373 and PMC identifier 6225539.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of <sup>18</sup>F-DCFBC PET/CT, a first-generation <sup>18</sup>F-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted agent, and <sup>18</sup>F-NaF PET/CT, a sensitive marker of osteoblastic activity, in a prospective cohort of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. <b>Methods:</b> Twenty-eight prostate cancer patients with metastatic disease on conventional imaging prospectively received up to 4 PET/CT scans. All patients completed baseline <sup>18</sup>F-DCFBC PET/CT and <sup>18</sup>F-NaF PET/CT scans, and 23 patients completed follow-up imaging, with a median follow-up interval of 5.7 mo (range, 4.2-12.6 mo). Lesion detection was compared across the 2 PET/CT agents at each time point. Detection and SUV characteristics of each PET/CT agent were compared with serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and treatment status at the time of baseline imaging using nonparametric statistical testing (Spearman correlation, Wilcoxon rank). <b>Results:</b> Twenty-six patients had metastatic disease detected on <sup>18</sup>F-NaF or <sup>18</sup>F-DCFBC at baseline, and 2 patients were negative on both scans. Three patients demonstrated soft tissue-only disease. Of 241 lesions detected at baseline, 56 were soft-tissue lesions identified by <sup>18</sup>F-DCFBC only and 185 bone lesions detected on <sup>18</sup>F-NaF or <sup>18</sup>F-DCFBC. <sup>18</sup>F-NaF detected significantly more bone lesions than <sup>18</sup>F-DCFBC (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Correlation of PSA with patient-level SUV metrics was strong in <sup>18</sup>F-DCFBC (ρ > 0.5, <i>P</i> < 0.01) and poor in <sup>18</sup>F-NaF (ρ < 0.3, <i>P</i> > 0.1). When PSA levels were combined with treatment status, patients with below-median levels of PSA (<2 ng/mL) on androgen deprivation therapy (<i>n</i> = 11) demonstrated more lesions on <sup>18</sup>F-NaF than <sup>18</sup>F-DCFBC (<i>P</i> = 0.02). In PSA greater than 2 ng/mL, patients on androgen deprivation therapy (<i>n</i> = 8) showed equal to or more lesions on <sup>18</sup>F-DCFBC than on <sup>18</sup>F-NaF. <b>Conclusion:</b> The utility of PSMA-targeting imaging in metastatic prostate cancer appears to depend on patient disease course and treatment status. Compared with <sup>18</sup>F-NaF PET/CT, <sup>18</sup>F-DCFBC PET/CT detected significantly fewer bone lesions in the setting of early or metastatic castrate-sensitive disease on treatment. However, in advanced metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, <sup>18</sup>F-DCFBC PET/CT shows good concordance with NaF PET/CT.
Medical subject headings
- Antigens, Surface
- Cysteine
- Fluorine Radioisotopes
- Glutamate Carboxypeptidase II
- Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
- Prostatic Neoplasms
- Radiopharmaceuticals