PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Steven P. Rowe AU - Katarzyna J. Macura AU - Anthony Ciarallo AU - Esther Mena AU - Amanda Blackford AU - Rosa Nadal AU - Emmanuel S. Antonarakis AU - Mario A. Eisenberger AU - Michael A. Carducci AU - Ashley E. Ross AU - Philip W. Kantoff AU - Daniel P. Holt AU - Robert F. Dannals AU - Ronnie C. Mease AU - Martin G. Pomper AU - Steve Y. Cho TI - Comparison of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen–Based <sup>18</sup>F-DCFBC PET/CT to Conventional Imaging Modalities for Detection of Hormone-Naïve and Castration-Resistant Metastatic Prostate Cancer AID - 10.2967/jnumed.115.163782 DP - 2016 Jan 01 TA - Journal of Nuclear Medicine PG - 46--53 VI - 57 IP - 1 4099 - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/57/1/46.short 4100 - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/57/1/46.full SO - J Nucl Med2016 Jan 01; 57 AB - Conventional imaging modalities (CIMs) have limited sensitivity and specificity for detection of metastatic prostate cancer. We examined the potential of a first-in-class radiofluorinated small-molecule inhibitor of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), N-[N-[(S)-1,3-dicarboxypropyl]carbamoyl]-4-18F-fluorobenzyl-l-cysteine (18F-DCFBC), to detect metastatic hormone-naïve (HNPC) and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Methods: Seventeen patients were prospectively enrolled (9 HNPC and 8 CRPC); 16 had CIM evidence of new or progressive metastatic prostate cancer and 1 had high clinical suspicion of metastatic disease. 18F-DCFBC PET/CT imaging was obtained with 2 successive PET scans starting at 2 h after injection. Patients were imaged with CIM at approximately the time of PET. A lesion-by-lesion analysis of PET to CIM was performed in the context of either HNPC or CRPC. The patients were followed with available clinical imaging as a reference standard to determine the true nature of identified lesions on PET and CIM. Results: On the lesion-by-lesion analysis, 18F-DCFBC PET was able to detect a larger number of lesions (592 positive with 63 equivocal) than CIM (520 positive with 61 equivocal) overall, in both HNPC and CRPC patients. 18F-DCFBC PET detection of lymph nodes, bone lesions, and visceral lesions was superior to CIM. When intrapatient clustering effects were considered, 18F-DCFBC PET was estimated to be positive in a large proportion of lesions that would be negative or equivocal on CIM (0.45). On follow-up, the sensitivity of 18F-DCFBC PET (0.92) was superior to CIM (0.71). 18F-DCFBC tumor uptake was increased at the later PET time point (∼2.5 h after injection), with background uptake showing a decreasing trend on later PET. Conclusion: PET imaging with 18F-DCFBC, a small-molecule PSMA-targeted radiotracer, detected more lesions than CIM and promises to diagnose and stage patients with metastatic prostate cancer more accurately than current imaging methods.