European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
Which patients with negative PSMA-PET imaging can safely avoid biopsy for prostate cancer? a novel step towards PSMA-based biopsy-free strategy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Yujia, Yang Jinhui, Xiao Ling, Zhou Ming, Li Jian, Cai Yi, Gao Xiaomei, Rominger Axel, Shi Kuangyu, Seifert Robert, Su Qi, Tang Yongxiang, Hu Shuo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify if a subset of men can safely avoid or delay prostate biopsy based on negative results of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 341 consecutive cases in a prospective biopsy cohort (NCT05073653), 111 treatment-naïve men with negative PSMA-PET (PRIMARY-score 1/2) were included. All participants underwent PSMA-PET and histopathological examinations. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as Grade Group ≥ 2. Multivariate logistic regression was employed to identify predictors of non-csPCa. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to detect non-csPCa on prostate pathology. PSMA-postive patients were additionally reviewed to assess the imaging and pathological outcomes.
RESULTS: Younger age was identified as an independent predictor (P = 0.006) for the absence of csPCa. ROC analysis of csPCa revealed the largest areas under the curve of 0.77 (0.67-0.87) and 0.78 (0.68-0.88) for individual age in the entire PSMA-negative cohort and the MRI subset, respectively (both P < 0.001). The negative predictive value (NPV) of PSMA-PET for csPCa detection improved with a decreasing age, from 88% in all, to 98% in men aged under 65 yrs (98% vs. 88%, P = 0.021), and to 100% in men aged under 60 yrs (100% vs. 88%, P = 0.040). The NPV of PSMA-PET improved from 88 to 94% when combined with negative MRI, and to 100% in men with negative MRI and aged under 65 yrs. The prevalence was 57% for csPCa and 65% for PCa of any grade.
CONCLUSION: We preliminarily propose that omission or postponement of prostate biopsy should be considered for men under the age of 65 yrs with negative PSMA-PET scored as PRIMARY 1 or 2. Conversely, prostate biopsy might be considered in biopsy-naïve men aged 65 yrs or older with strong clinical suspicion of PCa, despite negative PSMA-PET. Further prospective and external evaluation is needed to prove the robustness of this novel strategy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 341 consecutive cases in a prospective biopsy cohort (NCT05073653), 111 treatment-naïve men with negative PSMA-PET (PRIMARY-score 1/2) were included. All participants underwent PSMA-PET and histopathological examinations. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as Grade Group ≥ 2. Multivariate logistic regression was employed to identify predictors of non-csPCa. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to detect non-csPCa on prostate pathology. PSMA-postive patients were additionally reviewed to assess the imaging and pathological outcomes.
RESULTS: Younger age was identified as an independent predictor (P = 0.006) for the absence of csPCa. ROC analysis of csPCa revealed the largest areas under the curve of 0.77 (0.67-0.87) and 0.78 (0.68-0.88) for individual age in the entire PSMA-negative cohort and the MRI subset, respectively (both P < 0.001). The negative predictive value (NPV) of PSMA-PET for csPCa detection improved with a decreasing age, from 88% in all, to 98% in men aged under 65 yrs (98% vs. 88%, P = 0.021), and to 100% in men aged under 60 yrs (100% vs. 88%, P = 0.040). The NPV of PSMA-PET improved from 88 to 94% when combined with negative MRI, and to 100% in men with negative MRI and aged under 65 yrs. The prevalence was 57% for csPCa and 65% for PCa of any grade.
CONCLUSION: We preliminarily propose that omission or postponement of prostate biopsy should be considered for men under the age of 65 yrs with negative PSMA-PET scored as PRIMARY 1 or 2. Conversely, prostate biopsy might be considered in biopsy-naïve men aged 65 yrs or older with strong clinical suspicion of PCa, despite negative PSMA-PET. Further prospective and external evaluation is needed to prove the robustness of this novel strategy.