PSMA Expression Assessed by PET Imaging Is a Required Biomarker for Selecting Patients for Any PSMA-Targeted Therapy

PSMA Is Near Uniformly Expressed in Prostate Cancer Lesions

The prevalence of PSMA expression is more than 90% in prostate cancer (3–6). However, the degree and homogeneity of expression, both determinants of treatment response, vary among and within patients (7,8). Absent or low target expression limits the response to PSMA-targeted therapies (9,10). Studies reported that the whole-body PSMA PET SUV_mean correlated with outcomes of patients treated with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA (7,11,12). In a study conducted at Weill Cornell, fewer than 10% of patients with no or low PSMA expression at baseline had a significant PSA response to PSMA-targeted MRT (13).

Lesions with low PSMA expression and high glycolytic activity (PSMA-negative/¹⁸F-FDG–positive) can occur in up to 30% of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients referred for PSMA-targeted MRT (14,15). Patients with such aggressive nonresponding lesions have a shorter overall survival in response to PSMA-targeted MRT than those with PSMA-positive/¹⁸F-FDG–positive or PSMA-positive/¹⁸F-FDG–negative lesions (15,16). At the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Australia, patients are routinely selected for PSMA-targeted MRT by PSMA and ¹⁸F-FDG PET. The TheraP trial (7) excluded 10% and 20% of patients based on low lesion PSMA expression or high ¹⁸F-FDG to PSMA uptake ratios, respectively (14). This careful patient selection likely accounts for the superior progression-free survival of their cohorts in response to MRT when compared with reports from other groups.

In simple terms: no responsible physician would target PSMA if its expression were absent or low in all or some lesions. The non–PSMA-expressing lesions will not respond to PSMA-targeted MRT and will drive patient prognosis. On the basis of these data and our own experience, not characterizing target expression before PSMA-targeted treatment appears as nonsensical as omitting breast cancer receptor phenotyping from the standard work-up of breast cancer patients. Figure 1 depicts a patient with low–PSMA-expressing disease and a poor subsequent treatment response.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

FIGURE 1.

PSMA PET/CT of patient with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer before treatment with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA therapy. (A) Maximum-intensity-projection image shows extensive metastatic disease (lymph nodes, bone, liver) with low or no PSMA expression (below, equal to, or just above liver background uptake). (B) Patient received 1 cycle of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA therapy, with no response and rapid PSA progression. (C) Presence of multiple liver metastases on CT (left panel) without visible PSMA uptake on corresponding fused PET/CT (middle panel) and PET images (right panel).

Accessibility of PSMA PET Imaging Is Limited

Limited access to PSMA PET imaging in the United States will be history within the next few months. The U.S. Food and Drug administration has granted a new drug application for 2 compounds (⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 and ¹⁸F-PYL) in 2020–2021. Because radiopharmacies will deliver ¹⁸F compounds and PSMA-11 cold kits have become available for local generator–based ⁶⁸Ga production, PSMA PET will become as universally available as ¹⁸F-FDG PET.

The Costs of PET/CT Imaging Are High

Let us assume that 40,000 patients with prostate cancer will undergo ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA treatments per year (17). Let us also assume a high average imaging study cost of $5,000 per patient. Imaging costs would then amount to $200 million per year. Let us also assume that 1 treatment cycle of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA will cost $50,000 in the United States and that an average of 3 cycles (accounting for treatment discontinuation in nonresponding patients) will be given to each of the 40,000 patients, for a total of 120,000 cycles. Treatment cost would then amount to $6 billion per year. Let us finally assume conservatively that 1 of 5 patients (20%) would be screened out by PSMA PET/CT imaging because of no, low, or heterogeneous target expression. This screening would reduce the overall treatment costs by $1.2 billion per year. Thus, rather than adding expenses, appropriate imaging reduces health-care expenditures for PSMA-targeted theranostics significantly and dramatically, an effect that may not be in the interest of some industry sections but of great benefit for patients and society.

Patients and physicians demand and deserve personalized precision medicine. Radiotheranostics offer the unprecedented opportunity of whole-body image–guided individualized disease management. Imagine how chemotherapy outcomes would improve if whole-body drug biodistribution and target expression could be determined in advance of administration. And imagine how patient selection would improve if treatment failure could be predicted by applying a whole-body imaging biomarker.

We agree with Srinivas and Iagaru (18) that we finally have a predictive whole-body imaging biomarker for response to PSMA-targeted therapies in prostate cancer. Inclusion versus exclusion criteria based on PSMA imaging await further definition and refinement. However, if we are serious about precision medicine, PSMA imaging must be included in the selection of patients for PSMA-targeted therapies.