RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Intention-to-Treat Analysis of <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA and <sup>11</sup>C-Choline PET/CT Versus CT for Prostate Cancer Recurrence After Surgery
JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine
JO J Nucl Med
FD Society of Nuclear Medicine
SP 1359
OP 1365
DO 10.2967/jnumed.118.224543
VO 60
IS 10
A1 Johannes Schwenck
A1 Susann-Cathrin Olthof
A1 Christina Pfannenberg
A1 Gerald Reischl
A1 Daniel Wegener
A1 Jolanta Marzec
A1 Jens Bedke
A1 Arnulf Stenzl
A1 Konstantin Nikolaou
A1 Christian la Fougère
A1 Daniel Zips
A1 Arndt-Christian Müller
YR 2019
UL http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/60/10/1359.abstract
AB Biochemical recurrence (BCR) after prostate cancer surgery is common, even after additional salvage radiotherapy. BCR might be explained by target miss. Improved diagnostic accuracy provided by PET could potentially circumvent this therapeutic gap. Therefore, we evaluated consecutive 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT, 11C-choline PET/CT, and standard CT imaging in the same patient with regard to TNM-stage migration and accordingly adapted curative radiotherapy options including ablative treatment of oligometastases (n ≤ 5). The cost efficacy of PET- versus CT-based treatment was also calculated. Methods: The prospective register database (064/2013BO1) was retrospectively searched for patients fulfilling the following 3 inclusion criteria: BCR after radical prostatectomy (pT2–pT4 pN0–pN1 cM0, postoperative radiotherapy allowed); 11C-choline PET/CT, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, and diagnostic CT performed within 24 h; and available clinical data. Ten treatment routines were defined according to current practice. Furthermore, intention-to-treat and treatment-related costs depending on the shift of TNM stage after imaging were analyzed. Eighty-three patients were eligible (median prostate-specific antigen level, 1.9 ng/mL). Results: Both PET examinations led to concordant results in 72% of patients, whereas the concordance of TNM staging between 68Ga-PSMA PET and diagnostic CT was only 36%. Incorrect staging would lead to “wrong” treatment and therefore to additional costs. A 68Ga-PSMA PET study would be cost-effective if additional costs do not exceed €3,844 ($4,312) (vs. CT). The number needed to image was 2 (for CT) and 4 (for 11C-choline PET) to avoid 1 incorrect treatment. In addition, 68Ga-PSMA PET staging enabled new curative options in half the patients with previous radiotherapy who otherwise receive palliative androgen deprivation therapy. Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT is cost-effective in all patients with regard to avoidance of incorrect treatment. It enabled new curative options for patients with previous radiotherapy who are usually treated palliatively. Therefore, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT staging should become standard for BCR after surgery with or without radiotherapy.