RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Prospective Comparison of PET Imaging with PSMA-Targeted <sup>18</sup>F-DCFPyL Versus Na<sup>18</sup>F for Bone Lesion Detection in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer
JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine
JO J Nucl Med
FD Society of Nuclear Medicine
SP 183
OP 188
DO 10.2967/jnumed.119.227793
VO 61
IS 2
A1 Steven P. Rowe
A1 Xin Li
A1 Bruce J. Trock
A1 Rudolf A. Werner
A1 Sarah Frey
A1 Michael DiGianvittorio
A1 J. Keith Bleiler
A1 Diane K. Reyes
A1 Rehab Abdallah
A1 Kenneth J. Pienta
A1 Michael A. Gorin
A1 Martin G. Pomper
YR 2020
UL http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/61/2/183.abstract
AB Bone metastases in prostate cancer (PCa) have important prognostic significance, and imaging modalities used for PCa staging should have high sensitivity for detecting such lesions. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–targeted PET radiotracers are promising new agents for imaging PCa. We undertook a head-to-head comparison of PSMA-targeted 2-(3-{1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid (18F-DCFPyL) PET to Na18F PET to determine which modality was more sensitive for the detection of lesions suggestive of bone metastases in a group of patients with metastatic PCa. Methods: Patients with progressive, metastatic PCa were prospectively imaged with both 18F-DCFPyL and Na18F PET/CT, with both scans occurring within 24 h of each other. A consensus 2-reader central review was performed to identify all bone lesions suggestive of sites of PCa involvement on both scans, and maximized SUVs corrected for body weight (SUVmax) and lean body mass (SULmax) were recorded. Soft-tissue lesions were also noted on both scans, and SUVmax, SULmax, and PSMA reporting and data system (RADS) version 1.0 scores were recorded. Data from the 2 scans were compared using a generalized estimating equation. Results: In total, 16 patients meeting all inclusion criteria were enrolled in this study, and 15 of the 16 (93.8%) were imaged with both PET radiotracers. In total, 405 bone lesions suggestive of sites of PCa were identified on at least 1 scan. On 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT, 391 (96.5%) were definitively positive, 4 (1.0%) were equivocally positive, and 10 (2.5%) were negative. On Na18F PET/CT, the corresponding values were 388 (95.8%), 4 (1.0%), and 13 (3.2%). Of the definitively negative lesions on 18F-DCFPyL PET, 8 of 10 (80.0%) were sclerotic and 2 of 10 (20.0%) were infiltrative or marrow-based. Additionally, 12 of 13 (92.3%) of the definitively negative lesions on Na18F PET were infiltrative or marrow-based and 1 of 13 (7.7%) was lytic. Also identified were 78 PSMA-RADS-4, 17 PSMA-RADS-5, and 1 PSMA-RADS-3C soft-tissue lesions. Conclusion: PET/CT imaging using 18F-DCFPyL and Na18F PET had nearly identical sensitivities for the detection of bone lesions in patients with metastatic PCa. As would be expected, PSMA-targeted PET provides more information on soft-tissue disease. There may be little additional value to imaging PCa patients with Na18F after a PSMA-targeted PET scan has already been performed.