Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleClinical Investigation

PSMA- and GRPR-Targeted PET: Results from 50 Patients with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer

Lucia Baratto, Hong Song, Heying Duan, Negin Hatami, Hilary P. Bagshaw, Mark Buyyounouski, Steven Hancock, Sumit Shah, Sandy Srinivas, Patrick Swift, Farshad Moradi, Guido Davidzon and Andrei Iagaru
Journal of Nuclear Medicine November 2021, 62 (11) 1545-1549; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.259630
Lucia Baratto
1Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, California;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hong Song
1Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, California;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Heying Duan
1Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, California;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Negin Hatami
1Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, California;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hilary P. Bagshaw
2Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark Buyyounouski
2Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven Hancock
2Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sumit Shah
3Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sandy Srinivas
3Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick Swift
2Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Farshad Moradi
1Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, California;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Guido Davidzon
1Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, California;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrei Iagaru
1Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, California;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Visual Abstract

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Abstract

Novel radiopharmaceuticals for PET are being evaluated for the diagnosis of biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer (PC). We compared the gastrin-releasing peptide receptor–targeting 68Ga-RM2 with the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–targeting 68Ga-PSMA11 and 18F-DCFPyL. Methods: Fifty patients underwent both 68Ga-RM2 PET/MRI and 68Ga-PSMA11 (n = 23) or 18F-DCFPyL (n = 27) PET/CT at an interval ranging from 1 to 60 d (mean ± SD, 15.8 ± 17.7 d). SUVmax was collected for all lesions. Results: 68Ga-RM2 PET was positive in 35 and negative in 15 of the 50 patients. 68Ga-PSMA11/18F-DCFPyL PET was positive in 37 and negative in 13 of the 50 patients. Both scans detected 70 lesions in 32 patients. Forty-three lesions in 18 patients were identified on only 1 scan: 68Ga-RM2 detected 7 more lesions in 4 patients, whereas 68Ga-PSMA11/18F-DCFPyL detected 36 more lesions in 13 patients. Conclusion: 68Ga-RM2 remains a valuable radiopharmaceutical even when compared with the more widely used 68Ga-PSMA11/18F-DCFPyL in the evaluation of BCR of PC. Larger studies are needed to verify that identifying patients for whom these 2 classes of radiopharmaceuticals are complementary may ultimately allow for personalized medicine.

  • 68Ga-RM2
  • 68Ga-PSMA11
  • 18F-DCFPyL
  • PET
  • prostate cancer

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common noncutaneous cancer diagnosed in the United States, accounting for an estimated 191,930 new cases and 33,330 deaths (second only to lung cancer) in 2020 (1). Biochemical recurrence (BCR) within 10 y after primary treatment occurs in 20%–40% of cases after radical prostatectomy and 30%–50% of cases after radiation therapy (2,3). Despite a lack of consensus, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains the biomarker of disease after primary treatment. BCR is characterized by heterogeneity; therefore, a single biologic target is unlikely to allow for complete understanding and accurate treatment.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is currently the most evaluated PET molecular target for PC (4), showing better sensitivity and specificity than standard imaging for the detection of metastatic disease even at low PSA values (5). Commonly used radiopharmaceuticals targeting PSMA include 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC (68Ga-PSMA11) (6) and 18F-DCFPyL (7). Another class of radiopharmaceuticals used for the assessment of PC patients is the gastrin-releasing peptide analogs. Among them, 68Ga-BAY86-7548 (68Ga-RM2) has been reported in clinical studies (8,9). Our group showed that the PC detection rate was higher for 68Ga-RM2 PET than for MRI in a cohort of 32 patients (9).

Here, we compared 68Ga-RM2 with 68Ga-PSMA11 and 18F-DCFPyL. In the age of personalized medicine and theranostics, it is important to identify which patients will benefit from one class of radiopharmaceutical or the other. To our knowledge, this cohort has not been previously reported.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient Population

Participants with suspected BCR of PC after primary treatment were prospectively enrolled in 3 clinical trials evaluating the performance of 68Ga-RM2 (NCT 02624518), 68Ga-PSMA11 (NCT02673151), and 18F-DCFPyL (NCT03501940). Twenty-three patients underwent both 68Ga-RM2 PET/MRI and 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT, whereas another 27 patients underwent both 68Ga-RM2 PET/MRI and 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT. BCR was diagnosed after prostatectomy with or without adjuvant radiotherapy at a PSA level of 0.2 ng/mL or greater, with a second confirmatory PSA level of at least 0.2 ng/mL (10). For patients after radiation therapy, BCR was diagnosed as a rise in PSA measurement of 2 ng/mL or more over the nadir (11). All participants gave written informed consent, and the protocols were approved by the local institutional review board. Data collected in these 3 trials were retrospectively analyzed for this comparison.

Clinical parameters, including stage of disease, Gleason score, PSA nadir, PSA within 30 d of the scan, PSA velocity, and primary and subsequent treatments, were obtained from the electronic medical records.

Scanning Protocols

All 68Ga-PSMA11 and 18F-DCFPyL scans were acquired using a silicon photomultiplier–based PET/CT system (Discovery Molecular Insights; GE Healthcare). The scans were performed according to PSMA PET guidelines (12) and as previously described (7).

All 68Ga-RM2 scans were acquired using a time-of-flight–enabled simultaneous PET/MRI scanner (Signa; GE Healthcare), as previously described (9).

The choice of PET/CT or PET/MRI was dictated by the funding available to support the clinical trials. The PET/CT and PET/MRI use the same silicon photomultiplier–based detectors, and we previously reported their clinical evaluation (13,14).

Image Analysis

Two nuclear medicine physicians reviewed and analyzed all images using MIMvista, version 6.9.2 (MIM Software Inc.). One of these physicians subsequently recorded semiquantitative measurements (SUVmax). All areas of increased radiotracer uptake in sites not expected to show a physiologic accumulation were reported as abnormal. Increased uptake was defined as focal tracer uptake higher than the adjacent background level. 68Ga-RM2 uptake was considered physiologic in the following tissues: gastrointestinal tract, liver, spleen, pancreas, kidneys, ureters, and bladder (15). This approach is similar to guidelines for standard image interpretation for 68Ga-PSMA11 PET (16). The PET Edge tool (MIM Software Inc.) was used for evaluation of focal uptake outside the expected biodistribution. The diameters of anatomic structures corresponding to focal uptake were measured on T1-weighted MR images for 68Ga-RM2 and on CT images for 68Ga-PSMA11 and 18F-DCFPyL.

Most patients with a positive scan (68Ga-RM2 PET/MRI or 68Ga-PSMA11/18F-DCFPyL) started therapy after the examination; therefore, follow-up comparison with other imaging modalities was not possible. The findings were pathologically confirmed in 5 participants.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS, version 26 (SPSS Inc.). Continuous data are presented as mean ± SD, range, and frequency (%). The Welch test was used to compare PSA and PSA velocity between positive and negative scans. The paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare differences in lesion SUVmax between the radiopharmaceuticals. The Fisher exact test was used to correlate clinical parameters with positivity versus negativity of the 2 radiopharmaceuticals. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Patients’ Characteristics

Fifty patients, 52–81 y old (mean ± SD, 69.4 ± 7 y), underwent both 68Ga-RM2 PET/MRI and either 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT (n = 23) or 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT (n = 27). Thirty-six of the 50 had radical prostatectomy as the primary treatment, and 14 had radiation therapy. Fifteen patients were treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) before the scans, whereas 23 started ADT after the scans. The PSA level at the time of the scans ranged from 0.1 to 21.5 ng/mL (4.2 ± 5 ng/mL). Supplemental Tables 1 and 2 summarize clinical and imaging characteristics of this cohort of patients (supplemental materials are available at http://jnm.snmjournals.org).

The injected dose ranged from 111 to 155.4 MBq (114.3 ± 7.4 MBq) for 68Ga-RM2, from 129.5 to 199.8 MBq (151.7 ± 14.8 MBq) for 68Ga-PSMA11, and from 270.1 to 366.3 MBq ( 333 ± 25.9 MBq) for 18F-DCFPyL.

The uptake time ranged from 39 to 100 min (52.7 ± 11 min) for 68Ga-RM2 PET/MRI, from 45 to 107.9 min (66.3 ± 15 min) for 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT, and from 60 to 120 min (81.2 ± 17 min) for 18F-DCFPyL. The interval between the 68Ga-RM2 and 68Ga-PSMA11/18F-DCFPyL scans ranged from 1 to 60 d (15.8 ± 17.7 d).

PSMA (68Ga-PSMA11 and 18F-DCFPyL) Versus 68Ga-RM2 Findings

68Ga-RM2 PET was positive in 35 (70%) and negative in 15 (30%) of the 50 patients. PSMA PET was positive in 37 (74%) and negative in 13 (26%) of the 50 patients. Both scans detected 70 lesions in 32 patients (42 in lymph nodes, 7 in the prostate bed, 6 in the seminal vesicles, 6 in the liver, and 9 in bone). The SUVmax for these 70 lesions ranged from 1.7 to 52.5 (8.1 ± 9.4) for 68Ga-RM2 and from 1.6 to 79.3 (16.7 ± 17.4) for PSMA. The difference in SUVmax was statistically significant (P < 0.001).

PSA ranged from 0.3 to 21.5 ng/mL (4.4 ± 4.8 ng/mL) and from 0.1 to 19.2 ng/mL (3.6 ± 5.7 ng/mL) for 68Ga-RM2–positive versus –negative scans, respectively, and the difference was not significant (P = 0.775). PSA ranged from 0.2 to 21.5 ng/mL (4.2 ± 4.7 ng/mL) and from 0.1 to 19.2 ng/mL (3.6 ± 6.1 ng/mL) for PSMA-positive versus -negative scans, respectively, and the difference was not significant (P = 0.739).

PSA velocity ranged from 0.1 to 42 ng/mL/y (5.7 ± 9.8 ng/mL/y) and from 0.1 to 21.3 ng/mL/y (3.5 ± 5.5 ng/mL/y) for 68Ga-RM2–positive versus –negative scans, respectively, and the difference was not significant (P = 0.320). PSA velocity ranged from 0.1 to 42 ng/mL/y (5.6 ± 9.8 ng/mL/y) and from 0.1 to 12.2 ng/mL/y (2.9 ± 3.9 ng/mL/y) for PSMA-positive versus -negative scans, respectively, and the difference was not significant (P = 0.174).

The positivity rate for PSA ≤0.5, <0.5 to ≤1, <1 to ≤2, <2 to ≤5, and >5 ng/mL was 38% (n = 3/8), 90% (n = 9/11), 50% (n = 4/8), 89% (n = 8/9), and 79% (n = 11/14), respectively, for 68Ga-RM2 and 22% (n = 2/9), 91% (n = 10/11), 75% (n = 6/8), 100% (n = 9/9), and 77% (n = 10/13), respectively, for PSMA.

68Ga-RM2 detected 7 more lesions in 4 patients than did PSMA (3 lymph node lesions, 3 bone lesions, and 1 adrenal gland lesion). The average SUVmax of these lesions was 5.8, and 6 of the 7 had a diameter of less than 1 cm. The mean PSA in these patients was 5 ng/mL, and 3 of them had negative findings on the PSMA scan.

PSMA detected 36 more lesions in 13 patients than did 68Ga-RM2 (27 lymph node lesions, 1 lung lesion, and 8 bone lesions). The average SUVmax of these lesions was 14.8, and 23 of the 36 measured less than 1 cm. The mean PSA value of these patients was 4.6 ng/mL, and 5 of them had negative findings on the 68Ga-RM2 scan.

Ten participants had both negative 68Ga-RM2 scans and negative PSMA scans. Their PSA at the time of the scans ranged from 0.1 to 19.2 ng/mL (3.1 ± 6.1 ng/mL). This subgroup included 6 participants with a PSA of 0.5 ng/mL or less, 1 with 1.2 ng/mL, 1 with 1.4 ng/mL, 1 with 8.2 ng/mL, and 1 with 19.2 ng/mL.

We did not identify any significant correlation between radiologic findings (positive vs. negative 68Ga-RM2 and PSMA scans) and clinical parameters such as Gleason score (≤3 + 4; ≤4 + 3), primary treatment (radical prostatectomy vs. radiation therapy), or ADT before imaging.

Figures 1 and 2 and Supplemental Figures 1 and 2 show pairs of 68Ga-RM2 and 18F-DCFPyL findings in different participants. We previously published images comparing 68Ga-RM2 and 68Ga-PSMA11 (8).

FIGURE 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.

A 63-y-old man previously treated with radical prostatectomy, followed by salvage RT + ADT, presenting with BCR of PC (PSA, 0.4 ng/mL; PSA velocity, 1.6 ng/mL/y). Maximum-intensity-projection 68Ga-RM2 (A) and 18F-DCFPyL (B) PET images, axial 68Ga-RM2 (C) and 18F-DCFPyL (E) PET images, axial 68Ga-RM2 PET/MR image (D), and axial 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT image (F) are shown. Arrows mark left perirectal lymph nodes with significantly lower 68Ga-RM2 uptake than 18F-DCFPyL uptake.

FIGURE 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2.

A 66-y-old man previously treated with RT + ADT, presenting with BCR of PC (PSA, 11.6 ng/mL; PSA velocity, 12.2 ng/mL/y). Maximum-intensity-projection 68Ga-RM2 (A) and 18F-DCFPyL (B) PET images, axial 68Ga-RM2 (C) and 18F-DCFPyL (E) PET images, axial 68Ga-RM2 PET/MR image (D), and axial 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT image (F) are shown. Red arrows mark right adrenal lesion clearly seen on 68Ga-RM2 but not prospectively identified on 18F-DCFPyL, given similar uptake in adrenal gland and liver parenchyma. Blue arrows mark physiologic 68Ga-RM2 uptake in pancreas.

Lesion analysis for 68Ga-RM2 versus PSMA is shown in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Analysis of Lesions from 68Ga-RM2 vs. 68Ga-PSMA11/18F-DCFPyL

DISCUSSION

Our study evaluated gastrin-releasing peptide receptor and PSMA PET radiopharmaceuticals in patients with BCR of PC. The 68Ga-RM2 positivity rate was similar to our prior published reports (8,9). The overall semiquantitative analysis showed that SUVmax measurements were higher for PSMA radiopharmaceuticals than for 68Ga-RM2, and the difference was statistically significant. However, there were differences between 68Ga-PSMA11 and 18F-DCFPyL measurements against 68Ga-RM2, with higher and statistically significant values only for 18F-DCFPyL. This finding may be due to differences between 68Ga- and 18F-labeled radiopharmaceuticals. Prior work by Dietlein et al. showed that the same lesions have higher uptake measured on 18F-DCFPyL than on 68Ga-PSMA11 PET (17). PSA velocity for patients with positive versus negative scans was not statistically significant for either gastrin-releasing peptide receptor or PSMA PET in this cohort.

We previously reported the first comparison of 68Ga-RM2 and 68Ga-PSMA11 in a small pilot study (8). Here, we expanded with a new cohort of patients and 2 different PSMA-targeting radiopharmaceuticals. Hoberück et al. reported data from 16 patients with mostly advanced PC who underwent both and 68Ga-RM2 PET/CT and either 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT or 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/MRI (18). 68Ga-RM2 PET/CT showed 2 osseous lesions not seen by 68Ga-PSMA11, whereas the latter showed avid uptake in several locations not visible with 68Ga-RM2. To our knowledge, no previous studies compared 18F-DCFPyL and 68Ga-RM2.

PSMA ligands have a high positivity rate even at low PSA values (5). One study showed 50% positivity when PSA was less than 0.5 ng/mL in a cohort of 319 participants (19). In our cohort, the positivity rate was similar for PSMA and 68Ga-RM2 (2/9 and 3/8, respectively) at a PSA level of less than 0.5 ng/mL. Larger studies are needed to confirm these preliminary observations.

Gastrin-releasing peptide receptor is not highly expressed in advanced states of androgen-independent PC, especially in osseous metastases (20). Here, 68Ga-RM2 identified 3 bone lesions in 1 patient that were not conspicuous on PSMA. This patient was previously treated with radical prostatectomy and ADT, subsequently becoming androgen-independent. On the other hand, 68Ga-RM2 PET did not identify 8 osseous lesions seen by PSMA in other patients. These findings require further evaluation.

Some of the patients in this cohort received ADT before the scans, and this may have influenced the uptake of the 2 radiopharmaceuticals. PSMA uptake is regulated by androgen hormones, and ADT may considerably increase PSMA-ligand uptake (21–23). A single study suggested that ADT induces gastrin-releasing peptide activity, activation of nuclear factor κ-light-chain enhancer of activated B cells, and increased levels of androgen receptor splice variant 7 expression, resulting in progression to CRPC (24).

Recently, interest in metastasis-directed therapies in patients with minimal metastatic tumor burden (oligometastatic disease) has increased (25); in these patients, for whom the exact number and localization of the lesions is of great importance, having access to different classes of radiopharmaceuticals may be useful. Whether the PSA rise reflects a locoregional recurrence or distant metastatic disease still remains an important question in BCR of PC, because treatment planning would change accordingly from a potentially curative local therapy to watchful waiting or palliative systemic treatment. In this setting and considering how heterogeneous PC is, identifying patients for whom different classes of radiopharmaceuticals are complementary may ultimately allow for personalized medicine. The use of combination therapies with nonoverlapping toxicities may allow delivery of greater doses to lesions, as well as possibly less adverse events.

Our study had limitations, including the relatively small number of patients analyzed (albeit the largest dataset of gastrin-releasing peptide receptor vs. PSMA PET imaging results at BCR of PC) and the different methods used for scanning patients, dictated by available research funding. However, both PET/CT and PET/MRI used the same silicon photomultiplier–based detectors, which provide similar performance in both modalities. Magnetic resonance– based attenuation correction is not ideal for the skeleton; it is known that improperly accounting for bone may lead to underestimation of PET signal in tissues near bone (26), and this factor may have impacted the results of 68Ga-RM2. Lastly, pathologic confirmation of the identified lesions was limited to a small number of participants (10%) because of a bias from the referring physicians who accepted putative sites of disease on imaging after initial biopsies had returned no false-positive 68Ga-RM2 findings; in addition, PSMA findings are now widely accepted by treating physicians.

To determine whether there is a correlation between clinical features and gastrin-releasing peptide receptor versus PSMA-positive or -negative lesions, we ran the Fisher exact test but did not observe any significant associations. The cause may be the small cohort of patients enrolled. Furthermore, 20% of our participants had negative PSMA and 68Ga-RM2 findings, including at a PSA level of more than 5 ng/mL. These issues underline the complexity of the PC biology and should be evaluated in larger prospective studies.

CONCLUSION

68Ga-RM2 remains a valuable radiopharmaceutical even when compared with the more widely used 18F-DCFPyL/68Ga-PSMA11 in the evaluation of BCR of PC. Larger studies are needed to verify that identifying patients for whom these 2 classes of radiopharmaceuticals are complementary may ultimately allow for personalized medicine.

DISCLOSURE

The Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers for this work are NCT 02624518 (68Ga-RM2), NCT02673151 (68Ga-PSMA11), and NCT03501940 (18F-DCFPyL). NCT 02624518 (68Ga-RM2) was supported by Department of Defense Impact Award (W81XWH-16-1-0604). NCT02673151 (68Ga-PSMA11) was partially supported by institutional support from GE Healthcare and by Department of Radiology discretionary funds. NCT03501940 (18F-DCFPyL) was partially supported by Department of Radiology discretionary funds. Life MI provided the RM2 precursor. Progenics Pharmaceuticals provided 18F-DCFPyL as part of a research access program. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

KEY POINTS

  • QUESTION: Is there a benefit to using gastrin-releasing peptide receptor PET in addition to PSMA PET in patients with BCR of PC?

  • PERTINENT FINDINGS: Of the 50 patients, 68Ga-RM2 PET was positive in 35 (70%) and negative in 15 (30%), whereas PSMA PET was positive in 37 (74%) and negative in 13 (26%). Both scans detected 70 lesions in 32 patients (42 in lymph nodes, 7 in the prostate bed, 6 in the seminal vesicles, 6 in the liver, and 9 in bone). Forty-three lesions in 18 patients were shown by only 1 class of radiopharmaceutical: 68Ga-RM2 detected 7 more lesions in 4 patients, whereas PSMA detected 36 more lesions in 14 patients (9 lesions were identified by 68Ga-PSMA11 and 27 by 18F-DCFPyL).

  • IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: 68Ga-RM2 remains a valuable radiopharmaceutical even when compared with the more widely used 68Ga-PSMA11/18F-DCFPyL in the evaluation of BCR of PC. Larger studies are needed to verify that identifying patients for whom these 2 classes of radiopharmaceuticals are complementary may ultimately allow for personalized medicine.

Footnotes

  • Published online March 5, 2021.

  • © 2021 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Siegel RL,
    2. Miller KD,
    3. Jemal A.
    Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70:7–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Roehl KA,
    2. Han M,
    3. Ramos CG,
    4. Antenor JA,
    5. Catalona WJ.
    Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol. 2004;172:910–914.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Freedland SJ,
    2. Humphreys EB,
    3. Mangold LA,
    4. et al
    . Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2005;294:433–439.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. De Visschere PJL,
    2. Standaert C,
    3. Futterer JJ,
    4. et al
    . A systematic review on the role of imaging in early recurrent prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2:47–76.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Maurer T,
    2. Eiber M,
    3. Schwaiger M,
    4. Gschwend JE.
    Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13:226–235.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Afshar-Oromieh A,
    2. Holland-Letz T,
    3. Giesel FL,
    4. et al
    . Diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: evaluation in 1007 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1258–1268.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Song H,
    2. Harrison C,
    3. Duan H,
    4. et al
    . Prospective evaluation of 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer in an academic center: a focus on disease localization and changes in management. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:546–551.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Minamimoto R,
    2. Hancock S,
    3. Schneider B,
    4. et al
    . Pilot comparison of 68Ga-RM2 PET and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:557–562.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Minamimoto R,
    2. Sonni I,
    3. Hancock S,
    4. et al
    . Prospective evaluation of 68Ga-RM2 PET/MRI in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer and negative findings on conventional imaging. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:803–808.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Cookson MS,
    2. Aus G,
    3. Burnett AL,
    4. et al
    . Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol. 2007;177:540–545.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Roach M III.,
    2. Hanks G,
    3. Thames H Jr.,
    4. et al
    . Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:965-974.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Fendler WP,
    2. Eiber M,
    3. Beheshti M,
    4. et al
    . 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT: joint EANM and SNMMI procedure guideline for prostate cancer imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1014–1024.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Iagaru A,
    2. Mittra E,
    3. Minamimoto R,
    4. et al
    . Simultaneous whole-body time-of-flight 18F-FDG PET/MRI: a pilot study comparing SUVmax with PET/CT and assessment of MR image quality. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:1–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Baratto L,
    2. Park SY,
    3. Hatami N,
    4. et al
    . 18F-FDG silicon photomultiplier PET/CT: a pilot study comparing semi-quantitative measurements with standard PET/CT. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0178936.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Baratto L,
    2. Duan H,
    3. Laudicella R,
    4. et al
    . Physiological 68Ga-RM2 uptake in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer: an atlas of semi-quantitative measurements. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:115–122.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Fanti S,
    2. Minozzi S,
    3. Morigi JJ,
    4. et al
    . Development of standardized image interpretation for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT to detect prostate cancer recurrent lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1622–1635.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Dietlein M,
    2. Kobe C,
    3. Kuhnert G,
    4. et al
    . Comparison of [18F]DCFPyL and [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC for PSMA-PET imaging in patients with relapsed prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2015;17:575–584.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Hoberück S,
    2. Michler E,
    3. Wunderlich G,
    4. et al
    . 68Ga-RM2 PET in PSMA-positive and -negative prostate cancer patients. Nucl Med (Stuttg). 2019;58:352–362.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Afshar-Oromieh A,
    2. Malcher A,
    3. Eder M,
    4. et al
    . PET imaging with a [68Ga]gallium-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: biodistribution in humans and first evaluation of tumour lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:486–495.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Beer M,
    2. Montani M,
    3. Gerhardt J,
    4. et al
    . Profiling gastrin-releasing peptide receptor in prostate tissues: clinical implications and molecular correlates. Prostate. 2012;72:318–325.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Evans MJ,
    2. Smith-Jones PM,
    3. Wongvipat J,
    4. et al
    . Noninvasive measurement of androgen receptor signaling with a positron-emitting radiopharmaceutical that targets prostate-specific membrane antigen. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:9578–9582.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.
    1. Murga JD,
    2. Moorji SM,
    3. Han AQ,
    4. Magargal WW,
    5. DiPippo VA,
    6. Olson WC.
    Synergistic co-targeting of prostate-specific membrane antigen and androgen receptor in prostate cancer. Prostate. 2015;75:242–254.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    1. Meller B,
    2. Bremmer F,
    3. Sahlmann CO,
    4. et al
    . Alterations in androgen deprivation enhanced prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression in prostate cancer cells as a target for diagnostics and therapy. EJNMMI Res. 2015;5:66.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. Qiao J,
    2. Grabowska MM,
    3. Forestier-Roman IS,
    4. et al
    . Activation of GRP/GRP-R signaling contributes to castration-resistant prostate cancer progression. Oncotarget. 2016;7:61955–61969.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Giannarini G,
    2. Fossati N,
    3. Gandaglia G,
    4. et al
    . Will image-guided metastasis-directed therapy change the treatment paradigm of oligorecurrent prostate cancer? Eur Urol. 2018;74:131–133.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Chen Y,
    2. An H.
    Attenuation correction of PET/MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017;25:245–255.
    OpenUrl
  • Received for publication October 31, 2020.
  • Accepted for publication March 1, 2021.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 62 (11)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 62, Issue 11
November 1, 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
PSMA- and GRPR-Targeted PET: Results from 50 Patients with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
PSMA- and GRPR-Targeted PET: Results from 50 Patients with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer
Lucia Baratto, Hong Song, Heying Duan, Negin Hatami, Hilary P. Bagshaw, Mark Buyyounouski, Steven Hancock, Sumit Shah, Sandy Srinivas, Patrick Swift, Farshad Moradi, Guido Davidzon, Andrei Iagaru
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Nov 2021, 62 (11) 1545-1549; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.259630

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
PSMA- and GRPR-Targeted PET: Results from 50 Patients with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer
Lucia Baratto, Hong Song, Heying Duan, Negin Hatami, Hilary P. Bagshaw, Mark Buyyounouski, Steven Hancock, Sumit Shah, Sandy Srinivas, Patrick Swift, Farshad Moradi, Guido Davidzon, Andrei Iagaru
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Nov 2021, 62 (11) 1545-1549; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.259630
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The Association of Age-Related and Off-Target Retention with Longitudinal Quantification of [18F]MK6240 Tau PET in Target Regions
  • Response Monitoring in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study Comparing 18F-FDG PET/CT with Conventional CT
  • A Head-to-Head Comparison Between Plasma pTau181 and Tau PET Along the Alzheimer’s Disease Continuum
Show more Clinical Investigation

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • 68Ga-RM2
  • 68Ga-PSMA11
  • 18F-DCFPyL
  • PET
  • Prostate Cancer
SNMMI

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire