Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Description of FDG and Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen PET/CT Findings in Korean Patients With Advanced Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

  • Sae Jung Na (Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Seunggyun Ha (Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • In-Ho Kim (Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Ji Youl Lee (Department of Urology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Joo Hyun O (Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Received : 2024.05.09
  • Accepted : 2024.09.04
  • Published : 2024.11.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to describe the [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT findings in Korean men with advanced metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Materials and Methods: The results of paired FDG and PSMA PET/CT examinations performed in 42 consecutive men with prostate cancer for treatment planning after failure of anti-androgen therapy and chemotherapy were studied. Tumor lesions with FDG or PSMA uptake intensity higher than that of the liver on visual review were considered positive and noted per patient and tumor site (prostate bed, lymph node, bone, and visceral organ). The presence of unequivocally discordant FDG and PSMA uptake patterns in tumor lesions was assessed. Patients were grouped according to the total tumor volume as seen on each PET/CT scan, and the clinical findings between the patient groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: On patient-based analysis, the image findings were PSMA+/FDG- in 2 patients, PSMA-/FDG+ in one, and PSMA+/FDG+ in 39 patients. On site-based analysis, the discordance (PSMA+/FDG- or PSMA-/FDG+) rate was 9.5% (4/42) for prostate/bed, 11.9% (5/42) for lymph nodes, 9.5% (4/42) for bones, and 11.9% (5/42) for visceral organs. FDG uptake was higher than PSMA uptake in at least one tumor site in 54.8% (23/42) of patients. Patients with greater total tumor volume on FDG PET/CT than that on PSMA PET/CT ("FDG-dominant pattern") accounted for 28.6% (12/42), and they had significantly shorter time from diagnosis (median 25 months vs. 62 months, P = 0.049), and higher aspartate aminotransferase (median 28.5 vs. 22.5, P = 0.027) and lactate dehydrogenase (median 341.5 vs. 224.5, P = 0.010) levels. Conclusion: Most patients with advanced mCRPC had tumors with positive findings on both FDG and PSMA PET/CT. However, the uptake patterns varied; 54.8% of the patients had tumor(s) with FDG uptake greater than PSMA uptake, and FDG-dominant pattern was noted in 28.6% of the patients.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by National Research Foundation of Korea (grant no. 2022R1A2C1009770).

References

  1. Ristau BT, O'Keefe DS, Bacich DJ. The prostate-specific membrane antigen: lessons and current clinical implications from 20 years of research. Urol Oncol 2014;32:272-279  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.09.003
  2. Hofman MS, Emmett L, Sandhu S, Iravani A, Joshua AM, Goh JC, 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;397:797-804  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00237-3
  3. 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;385:1091-1103  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2107322
  4. Oh SW, Cheon GJ. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET imaging in prostate cancer: opportunities and challenges. Korean J Radiol 2018;19:819-831  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.5.819
  5. Schaeffer EM, Srinivas S, Adra N, An Y, Barocas D, Bitting R, et al. Prostate cancer, version 4.2023, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2023;21:1067-1096  https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2023.0050
  6. Jadvar H. Imaging evaluation of prostate cancer with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT: utility and limitations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40(Suppl 1):S5-S10 
  7. Kang PM, Seo WI, Lee SS, Bae SK, Kwak HS, Min K, et al. Incidental abnormal FDG uptake in the prostate on 18-fluoro2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography scans. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014;15:8699-8703  https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.20.8699
  8. Beauregard JM, Blouin AC, Fradet V, Caron A, Fradet Y, Lemay C, et al. FDG-PET/CT for pre-operative staging and prognostic stratification of patients with high-grade prostate cancer at biopsy. Cancer Imaging 2015;15:2 
  9. Bauckneht M, Bertagna F, Donegani MI, Durmo R, Miceli A, De Biasi V, et al. The prognostic power of 18F-FDG PET/CT extends to estimating systemic treatment response duration in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2021;24:1198-1207  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00391-8
  10. Bauckneht M, Marini C, Cossu V, Campi C, Riondato M, Bruno S, et al. Gene's expression underpinning the divergent predictive value of [18F]F-fluorodeoxyglucose and prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in primary prostate cancer: a bioinformatic and experimental study. J Transl Med 2023;21:3 
  11. Haffner MC, Zwart W, Roudier MP, True LD, Nelson WG, Epstein JI, et al. Genomic and phenotypic heterogeneity in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2021;18:79-92  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-020-00400-w
  12. Al-Ghazawi M, Salameh H, Amo-Afful S, Khasawneh S, Ghanem R. An in-depth look into the epidemiological and etiological aspects of prostate cancer: a literature review. Cureus 2023;15:e48252 
  13. Culp MB, Soerjomataram I, Efstathiou JA, Bray F, Jemal A. Recent global patterns in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 2020;77:38-52  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.005
  14. Song C, Ro JY, Lee MS, Hong SJ, Chung BH, Choi HY, et al. Prostate cancer in Korean men exhibits poor differentiation and is adversely related to prognosis after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2006;68:820-824  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.04.029
  15. Jeong IG, Dajani D, Verghese M, Hwang J, Cho YM, Hong JH, et al. Differences in the aggressiveness of prostate cancer among Korean, Caucasian, and African American men: a retrospective cohort study of radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2016;34:3.e9-3.e14 
  16. Ko YH, Kim BH, Kwon SY, Jung HJ, Hah YS, Kim YJ, et al. Trends of stratified prostate cancer risk in a single Korean province from 2003 to 2021: a multicenter study conducted using regional training hospital data. Investig Clin Urol 2023;64:140-147 
  17. Lillard JW Jr, Moses KA, Mahal BA, George DJ. Racial disparities in Black men with prostate cancer: a literature review. Cancer 2022;128:3787-3795  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34433
  18. Ha S, O JH, Park C, Boo SH, Yoo IR, Moon HW, et al. Dosimetric analysis of a phase I study of PSMA-targeting radiopharmaceutical therapy with [177Lu]ludotadipep in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Korean J Radiol 2024;25:179-188 
  19. Shin D, Ha S, O JH, Rhew SA, Yoon CE, Kwon HJ, et al. A single dose of novel PSMA-targeting radiopharmaceutical agent [177Lu]ludotadipep for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: phase I clinical trial. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14:6225 
  20. Kassouf W, Nakanishi H, Ochiai A, Babaian KN, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ. Effect of prostate volume on tumor grade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the era of extended prostatic biopsies. J Urol 2007;178:111-114  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.013
  21. Klayton TL, Ruth K, Buyyounouski MK, Uzzo RG, Wong YN, Chen DY, et al. PSA doubling time predicts for the development of distant metastases for patients who fail 3DCRT or IMRT using the Phoenix definition. Pract Radiat Oncol 2011;1:235-242  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2011.02.003
  22. Zhou X, Li Y, Jiang X, Wang X, Chen S, Shen T, et al. Intra-individual comparison of 18F-PSMA-1007 and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of patients with prostate cancer. Front Oncol 2021;10:585213 
  23. Xu L, Chen R, Yu X, Liu J, Wang Y. 18F-FDG PET is not inferior to 68Ga-PSMA PET for detecting biochemical recurrent prostate cancer with a high Gleason score: a head-to-head comparison study. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023;14:7 
  24. Fallah J, Agrawal S, Gittleman H, Fiero MH, Subramaniam S, John C, et al. FDA approval summary: lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2023;29:1651-1657 
  25. Karimzadeh A, Heck M, Tauber R, Solaris E, Nekolla S, Knorr K, et al. The impact of PSMA PET-based eligibility criteria used in the prospective phase II TheraP trial in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients undergoing prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted radioligand therapy. J Nucl Med 2023;64:1252-1258 
  26. Meziou S, Ringuette Goulet C, Hovington H, Lefebvre V, Lavallee E, Bergeron M, et al. GLUT1 expression in high-risk prostate cancer: correlation with 18F-FDG-PET/CT and clinical outcome. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2020;23:441-448  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-020-0202-x
  27. Buteau JP, Martin AJ, Emmett L, Iravani A, Sandhu S, Joshua AM, et al. PSMA and FDG-PET as predictive and prognostic biomarkers in patients given [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TheraP): a biomarker analysis from a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2022;23:1389-1397  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00605-2
  28. Michalski K, Ruf J, Goetz C, Seitz AK, Buck AK, Lapa C, et al. Prognostic implications of dual tracer PET/CT: PSMA ligand and [18F]FDG PET/CT in patients undergoing [177Lu]PSMA radioligand therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021;48:2024-2030  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05160-8
  29. Rathke H, Holland-Letz T, Mier W, Flechsig P, Mavriopoulou E, Rohrich M, et al. Response prediction of 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy using prostate-specific antigen, chromogranin A, and lactate dehydrogenase. J Nucl Med 2020;61:689-695  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.231431
  30. Seifert R, Telli T, Hadaschik B, Fendler WP, Kuo PH, Herrmann K. Is 18F-FDG PET needed to assess 177Lu-PSMA therapy eligibility? A VISION-like, single-center analysis. J Nucl Med 2023;64:731-737  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.122.264741
  31. Fanti S, Briganti A, Emmett L, Fizazi K, Gillessen S, Goffin K, et al. EAU-EANM consensus statements on the role of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with prostate cancer and with respect to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy. Eur Urol Oncol 2022;5:530-536