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
Research ArticleClinical Investigation

The Impact of PSMA PET–Based Eligibility Criteria Used in the Prospective Phase II TheraP Trial in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen–Targeted Radioligand Therapy

Amir Karimzadeh, Matthias Heck, Robert Tauber, Esteban Solaris, Stephan Nekolla, Karina Knorr, Bernhard Haller, Calogero D’Alessandria, Wolfgang A. Weber, Matthias Eiber and Isabel Rauscher
Journal of Nuclear Medicine June 2023, jnumed.122.265346; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.122.265346
Amir Karimzadeh
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany;
2Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg–Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthias Heck
3Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Tauber
3Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Esteban Solaris
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephan Nekolla
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karina Knorr
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bernhard Haller
4Institute of AI and Informatics in Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Calogero D’Alessandria
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wolfgang A. Weber
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthias Eiber
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Isabel Rauscher
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany;
  • 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

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    Comparison of PET eligibility criteria used in TheraP (inner pie chart) and our retrospective stratification of patients (outer pie chart). In inner pie chart, green fill is patients who fulfilled PET eligibility criteria according to TheraP (TheraP–positive, 72%), gray fill is patients who were excluded because of discordant 18F-FDG–positive, PSMA-negative metastatic disease (18%), and red fill is patients who were not included because of low uptake on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT (SUVmax-negative, 10%). In outer pie chart (not drawn to scale), green is patients who retrospectively fulfilled inclusion criteria from TheraP (TheraP cePSMA PET–positive, 72%), and red is patients who retrospectively did not fulfill PSMA ligand PET-based SUVmax inclusion criteria (TheraP cePSMA PET–negative, 28%). Asterisk in gap represents patient cohort that was excluded from TheraP on basis of 18F-FDG–positive, PSMA-negative disease and was also not treated with PSMA RLT at our institution because of PSMA-negative visceral or soft-tissue lesions. Hatched areas represent patients in our cohort who were treated with PSMA RLT but might have been excluded from TheraP because of 18F-FDG–positive, PSMA-negative bone disease. ⊕ = positive; ⊖ = negative.

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

    Examples of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in mCRPC patients. (A and B) Maximum-intensity projection (A) and PSMA ligand PET/CT (B, top) and corresponding CT dataset (B, bottom) in 67-y-old patient from TheraP cePSMA PET–negative group with bone and lymph node metastases presenting with retrocrural lymph node metastasis with short-axis diameter of 14 mm and SUVmax of 8.1 (arrows). (C and D) Maximum-intensity projection (C) and PSMA ligand PET/CT (D, top) with corresponding CT dataset (D, bottom) in 74-y-old patient from TheraP cePSMA PET–positive group with bone and lymph node metastases presenting with retrocrural lymph node metastasis with short-axis diameter of 11 mm and SUVmax of 10.8 (arrows). PSA PFS and OS were 11 wk and 8 mo, respectively, in patient shown in A and B and 45 wk and 45 mo, respectively, in patient shown in C and D.

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    Waterfall plot showing response to treatment as measured by serum PSA. Color-coded best PSA response is defined as smallest increase or greatest decrease in PSA from baseline. Green indicates patients who fulfilled PET eligibility criteria (TheraP cePSMA PET–positive, n = 77). Red indicates patients who did not fulfill TheraP PET-based inclusion criteria (TheraP cePSMA PET–negative, n = 30). Asterisks indicate patients with increase of more than 100% in best PSA response.

  • FIGURE 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4.

    Kaplan–Meier survival curves for PSA PFS (A) and OS (B) in TheraP cePSMA PET–positive and TheraP cePSMA PET–negative patients.

  • FIGURE 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 5.

    Kaplan–Meier survival curves for PSA PFS and OS in exploratory cePSMA PET–positive and exploratory cePSMA PET–negative patients stratified according to presence of PSMA-positive disease with SUVmax of at least 10 and 15 (A), 25 (B), 30 (C), 35 (D), 40 (E), and 45 and 50 (E).

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1.

    Baseline Patient Characteristics

    CharacteristicData
    No. of patients107
    Age (y)73 (66–76)
    PSA (ng/mL)115 (19–324)
    Lactate dehydrogenase (U/L)266 (217–350)
    Alkaline phosphatase (U/L)101 (72–229)
    Hemoglobin (g/dL)11.5 (10.1–12.4)
    Prior systemic therapies for mCRPC
     Docetaxel82
     Cabazitaxel20
     Abiraterone87
     Enzalutamide63
     223Ra19
     Previous chemotherapy82
    Site of metastasis
     Lymph node, overall87
     Lymph node only (N1+/M1a)7
     Bone overall97
     Bone (M1b, without visceral metastases)71
     Visceral, overall (M1c)31
     Liver10
     Lung14
     Adrenal10
    • Qualitative data are number and percentage; continuous data are median and interquartile range (n = 107).

    • View popup
    TABLE 2.

    PET-Based Eligibility Criteria

    CriterionPET-based eligibility in TheraP using 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-FDG PET (7)Institutional PET-based eligibility criteria using 68Ga-PSMA-11 and contrast-enhanced CT
    InclusionPSMA-positive disease with at least SUVmax of 20 at site of disease; SUVmax greater than 10 at all other sites of measurable (diameter, ≥10 mm) metastatic diseasePSMA ligand uptake at least as high as liver background uptake in most metastatic lesions
    ExclusionMetastatic site of disease with discordant 18F-FDG–positive and 68Ga-PSMA-11–negative findingsAny negative visceral metastases (>1 cm) or relevant fraction (∼>25%) of soft-tissue lesions in contrast-enhanced CT with PSMA ligand uptake lower than liver uptake
    • View popup
    TABLE 3.

    Uni- and Multivariate Cox Regression Analysis

    Univariate analysisMultivariate analysis
    ParameterPatients (n)HR95% CIPHR95% CIP
    TheraP criteria107
     TheraP cePSMA PET–negative30Reference
     TheraP cePSMA PET–positive770.50.3–0.80.001*0.50.3–0.80.003*
    Visceral metastases107
     NoReference
     Yes1.71.2–2.60.02*2.21.3–.2.70.005*
    Lymph node only107
     NoReference
     Yes0.40.2–1.10.070.60.2–1.60.3
    Previous abiraterone107
     NoReference
     Yes1.10.7–1.90.71.50.9–2.70.2
    Previous enzalutamide107
     NoReference
     Yes0.90.6–1.40.70.70.5–1.10.2
    Previous 223Ra107
     NoReference
     Yes0.90.5–1.50.70.70.4–1.20.2
    Previous chemotherapy107
     YesReference
     No0.70.5–1.20.21.30.7–2.50.3
    Age, risk change with 10 y increase107
     Continuous1.00.8–1.40.91.10.8–1.50.7
    PSA, risk change with 50 ng/mL increase107
     Continuous1.01.0–1.00.02*1.01.0–1.00.5
    Hemoglobin (g/dL)107
     Continuous0.80.7–0.8<0.0001*0.70.6–0.9<0.001*
    AP, risk change with 50 U/L increase107
     Continuous1.01.0–1.00.051.01.0–1.10.9
    LDH, risk change with 50 U/L increase107
     Continuous1.01.0–1.1<0.0001*1.11.0–1.10.03*
    • ↵* Statistically significant.

    • AP = alkaline phosphatase; LDH = lactate dehydrogenase.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 66 (5)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 66, Issue 5
May 1, 2025
  • 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.
The Impact of PSMA PET–Based Eligibility Criteria Used in the Prospective Phase II TheraP Trial in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen–Targeted Radioligand Therapy
(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
The Impact of PSMA PET–Based Eligibility Criteria Used in the Prospective Phase II TheraP Trial in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen–Targeted Radioligand Therapy
Amir Karimzadeh, Matthias Heck, Robert Tauber, Esteban Solaris, Stephan Nekolla, Karina Knorr, Bernhard Haller, Calogero D’Alessandria, Wolfgang A. Weber, Matthias Eiber, Isabel Rauscher
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jun 2023, jnumed.122.265346; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.122.265346

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Impact of PSMA PET–Based Eligibility Criteria Used in the Prospective Phase II TheraP Trial in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen–Targeted Radioligand Therapy
Amir Karimzadeh, Matthias Heck, Robert Tauber, Esteban Solaris, Stephan Nekolla, Karina Knorr, Bernhard Haller, Calogero D’Alessandria, Wolfgang A. Weber, Matthias Eiber, Isabel Rauscher
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jun 2023, jnumed.122.265346; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.122.265346
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

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • PET-Based TheraP Eligibility and Outcomes of VISION-Eligible Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Who Received 177Lu-PSMA-617: Importance of 18F-FDG-Avid Discordant Findings
  • 61Cu-PSMA-Targeted PET for Prostate Cancer: From Radiotracer Development to First-in-Human Imaging
  • Real-World Experience with 177Lu-PSMA-617 Radioligand Therapy After Food and Drug Administration Approval
  • Improved Quality of Life in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Receiving Consecutive Cycles of 177Lu-PSMA I&T
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • First-in-Human Study of 18F-Labeled PET Tracer for Glutamate AMPA Receptor [18F]K-40: A Derivative of [11C]K-2
  • Detection of HER2-Low Lesions Using HER2-Targeted PET Imaging in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Paired HER2 PET and Tumor Biopsy Analysis
  • [11C]Carfentanil PET Whole-Body Imaging of μ-Opioid Receptors: A First in-Human Study
Show more Clinical Investigation

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer
  • mCRPC
  • TheraP
  • 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET
  • prostate-specific membrane antigen targeted radioligand therapy
  • PSMA RLT
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire