Skip to main content

Main menu

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

Predictive variables of clinical outcomes of indeterminate bone lesions at [18F]-DCFPyL PET/CT imaging

Tim Phelps, Stephanie Harmon, Esther Mena, Liza Lindenberg, Deborah Citrin, Peter Pinto, Bradford Wood, William Dahut, James Gulley, Ravi Madan, Peter Choyke and Baris Turkbey
Journal of Nuclear Medicine August 2022, 63 (supplement 2) 2624;
Tim Phelps
1National Cancer Institute, NIH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephanie Harmon
2National Cancer Institute
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Esther Mena
1National Cancer Institute, NIH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Liza Lindenberg
3MIP, NCI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deborah Citrin
4NCI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Pinto
5Urologic Oncology Branch, NCI, NIH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bradford Wood
6Radiology and Imaging Sciences, CC, NIH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William Dahut
7National Cancer Institute. NIH.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James Gulley
2National Cancer Institute
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ravi Madan
8Genitourinary Malignancies Branch, NCI, NIH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Choyke
7National Cancer Institute. NIH.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Baris Turkbey
7National Cancer Institute. NIH.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

2624

Introduction: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is overexpressed on 95% of prostate cancers and has become a critical biomarker for targeted imaging with positron emission tomography (PET) agents. [18F]-DCFPyL, an FDA approved PSMA-based PET agent, has demonstrated superiority for early metastatic prostate cancer detection [1]. However, a pitfall of PSMA-PET is the presence of indeterminate PSMA uptake in soft tissue and bone lesions [2,3]. Since metastatic prostate cancer commonly involves bones, indeterminate bone lesions (IBLs) that are truly benign entities could be easily mistaken for bone metastases, leading to unnecessary biopsy and overtreatment of patients with life-changing interventions. Therefore, it is imperative to understand and interpret IBLs with high accuracy. Herein, we aim to define variables based on PSMA-PET imaging findings that predict the clinical outcome of IBLs.

Methods: [18F]-DCFPyL PET/CT imaging was performed in 244 consecutive biochemically recurrent (BCR) and high-risk primary disease patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer and without prior evidence of metastatic disease at CT and bone scan. Patients included in the analysis had at least one IBL identified by [18F]-DCFPyL with or without the presence of other definitive metastatic bone or lymph node lesions. Each IBL was interpreted by 2 readers using follow-up imaging and guided biopsy (when available), and was defined as benign, malignant, or equivocal. Patient variables (age, Gleason Grade, TNM stage, PSA), lesion variables (location [spine, pelvis, rib, other], SUVmax) and scan variables (presence of positive lymph nodes, local findings in the prostate/prostate bed, other indeterminate or definite bone lesions suspicious of metastatic disease) were noted. Statistical testing included Pearson’s chi-square tests for categorical variables, Wilcoxon rank sum tests for continuous variables, and logistic regression analysis. Statistical analysis was performed accounting for the clustered nature of lesion data on the patient-level.

Results: Of the 244 patients that underwent [18F]-DCFPyL imaging, 97 IBLs were identified in 47 patients. After prospective or retrospective interpretation of each IBL, 42 were considered as malignant, 35 were benign, and 20 had equivocal findings. With few exceptions, IBLs that were interpreted as equivocal resulted from no patient follow-up or insufficient imaging information to make a definitive decision. Lesion location (chi-square p=0.036) and SUVmax (chi-square p=0.026) were categorically predictive variables of IBL clinical outcome, including equivocal lesions (Table 1). 41 of the 42 IBLs (97.6%) interpreted as malignant were found in the pelvis or spine, had SUVmax≥5, or had other definite bone metastases noted at [18F]-DCFPyL scans. 34 of the 35 IBLs (97.1%) with benign interpretation were present in the ribs or had SUVmax<5. Similar to IBLs with benign findings, 19 of the 20 IBLs (95.0%) with equivocal interpretation were located in the ribs or had SUVmax<5. Logistic regression revealed that SUVmax (OR=2.21, p=0.002) and the presence of other typical metastatic bone lesions in the scan (OR=2.23, p=0.014) were significant predictors of clinical outcome.

Conclusions: In this BCR and high-risk prostate cancer patient cohort, lesion location, lesion SUVmax, and the presence of additional typical bone metastases are significant predictive variables for determining the clinical outcome of IBLs at [18F]-DCFPyL PET/CT imaging. Although different PSMA-PET radiotracers require specific decisions for a particular scan, radiologists could utilize these predictive variables when interpreting [18F]-DCFPyL PET/CT images to guide their decision-making for IBLs. However, correlating imaging findings with patient history can be necessary before defining IBLs as benign findings or pursuing additional interventions for further interrogation to depict metastatic disease.

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 63, Issue supplement 2
August 1, 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
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.
Predictive variables of clinical outcomes of indeterminate bone lesions at [18F]-DCFPyL PET/CT imaging
(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
Predictive variables of clinical outcomes of indeterminate bone lesions at [18F]-DCFPyL PET/CT imaging
Tim Phelps, Stephanie Harmon, Esther Mena, Liza Lindenberg, Deborah Citrin, Peter Pinto, Bradford Wood, William Dahut, James Gulley, Ravi Madan, Peter Choyke, Baris Turkbey
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2022, 63 (supplement 2) 2624;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Predictive variables of clinical outcomes of indeterminate bone lesions at [18F]-DCFPyL PET/CT imaging
Tim Phelps, Stephanie Harmon, Esther Mena, Liza Lindenberg, Deborah Citrin, Peter Pinto, Bradford Wood, William Dahut, James Gulley, Ravi Madan, Peter Choyke, Baris Turkbey
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2022, 63 (supplement 2) 2624;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A Novel Automatic Bone Metastasis Delineation Method for Total-body PET/CT
  • Head to Head Comparison of 99mTc-HYNIC-PSMA-11 and Bone Scan in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Patients before Radioligand Therapy
  • Predictors of distant metastases at 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in early-recurrent hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) patients
Show more GU

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire