Nuclear medicine and biology · 2019
Accuracy of [68Ga]Ga-RM2-PET/CT for diagnosis of primary prostate cancer compared to histopathology.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Fassbender Thomas F, Schiller Florian, Mix Michael, Maecke Helmut R, Kiefer Selina, Drendel Vanessa, Meyer Philipp T, Jilg Cordula A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PCa) often shows an overexpression of the gastrin-releasing peptide receptor (GRPr). Therefore, GRPr is a possible theragnostic target. An interesting antagonist GRPr-ligand is RM2 or BAY86-7548. This study examines the accuracy of positron emission tomography (PET) with [68Ga]Ga-RM2 for diagnostic imaging of primary PCa (pPCa) compared to histopathology in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).
METHODS: [68Ga]Ga-RM2-PET examinations were performed in 15 patients before RP. All prostate specimens were histopathologically examined based on predefined spatial octants. Each prostate volume on PET was subdivided into octants, which were correlated to histopathology and evaluated according to presence of tumor by two experienced examiners. Additionally, PET data was evaluated by volume of interest (VOI) analyses in terms of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and normalized SUVmax relative to background activity (rSUVmax). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for SUVmax and rSUVmax were calculated.
RESULTS: At least one focus of increased [68Ga]Ga-RM2 uptake corresponding to a tumor manifestation on histology was found in 14 of 15 patients (93%). Spatial concordance of visual PET readings with histopathology was very variable. Intraindividual agreement reached from ≤2 octants in three, 3-5 octants in six to ≥6 octants in six patients, resulting in a relatively low correlation of visual PET readings with histopathology (accuracy = 0.63; p = 0.0018). Lesion-based analysis found a sensitivity of 69% and a positive predictive value of 73%. Concordantly, the octant-based ROC curves for SUVmax and rSUVmax indicated a relatively low diagnostic performance (area under the curve of 0.59 and 0.61, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: [68Ga]Ga-RM2-PET shows only a relatively low diagnostic accuracy for pPCa compared to histopathology on an octant basis, which may be explained to some extent by methodological weaknesses. Further studies need to explore, whether the observed high interindividual variability of agreement between [68Ga]Ga-RM2-PET and histopathology can be explained by different tumor biologies or other coincident prostatic pathologies.
METHODS: [68Ga]Ga-RM2-PET examinations were performed in 15 patients before RP. All prostate specimens were histopathologically examined based on predefined spatial octants. Each prostate volume on PET was subdivided into octants, which were correlated to histopathology and evaluated according to presence of tumor by two experienced examiners. Additionally, PET data was evaluated by volume of interest (VOI) analyses in terms of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and normalized SUVmax relative to background activity (rSUVmax). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for SUVmax and rSUVmax were calculated.
RESULTS: At least one focus of increased [68Ga]Ga-RM2 uptake corresponding to a tumor manifestation on histology was found in 14 of 15 patients (93%). Spatial concordance of visual PET readings with histopathology was very variable. Intraindividual agreement reached from ≤2 octants in three, 3-5 octants in six to ≥6 octants in six patients, resulting in a relatively low correlation of visual PET readings with histopathology (accuracy = 0.63; p = 0.0018). Lesion-based analysis found a sensitivity of 69% and a positive predictive value of 73%. Concordantly, the octant-based ROC curves for SUVmax and rSUVmax indicated a relatively low diagnostic performance (area under the curve of 0.59 and 0.61, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: [68Ga]Ga-RM2-PET shows only a relatively low diagnostic accuracy for pPCa compared to histopathology on an octant basis, which may be explained to some extent by methodological weaknesses. Further studies need to explore, whether the observed high interindividual variability of agreement between [68Ga]Ga-RM2-PET and histopathology can be explained by different tumor biologies or other coincident prostatic pathologies.