RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Prospective Evaluation of 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer in an Academic Center: A Focus on Disease Localization and Changes in Management JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine JO J Nucl Med FD Society of Nuclear Medicine SP 546 OP 551 DO 10.2967/jnumed.119.231654 VO 61 IS 4 A1 Hong Song A1 Caitlyn Harrison A1 Heying Duan A1 Kip Guja A1 Negin Hatami A1 Benjamin L. Franc A1 Farshad Moradi A1 Carina Mari Aparici A1 Guido A. Davidzon A1 Andrei Iagaru YR 2020 UL http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/61/4/546.abstract AB 18F-DCFPyL (2-(3-{1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoropyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid) is a promising PET radiopharmaceutical targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA). We present our experience with this single-academic-center prospective study evaluating the positivity rate of 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT in patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer (PC). Methods: We prospectively enrolled 72 men (52–91 y old; mean ± SD, 71.5 ± 7.2) with BCR after primary definitive treatment with prostatectomy (n = 42) or radiotherapy (n = 30). The presence of lesions compatible with PC was evaluated by 2 independent readers. Fifty-nine patients had scans concurrent with at least one other conventional scan: bone scanning (24), CT (21), MR (20), 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT (18), or 18F-NaF PET (14). Findings from 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT were compared with those from other modalities. Impact on patient management based on 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT was recorded from clinical chart review. Results: 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT had an overall positivity rate of 85%, which increased with higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (ng/mL): 50% (PSA < 0.5), 69% (0.5 ≤ PSA < 1), 100% (1 ≤ PSA < 2), 91% (2 ≤ PSA < 5), and 96% (PSA ≥ 5). 18F-DCFPyL PET detected more lesions than conventional imaging. For anatomic imaging, 20 of 41 (49%) CT or MRI scans had findings congruent with 18F-DCFPyL, whereas 18F-DCFPyL PET was positive in 17 of 41 (41%) cases with negative CT or MRI findings. For bone imaging, 26 of 38 (68%) bone or 18F-NaF PET scans were congruent with 18F-DCFPyL PET, whereas 18F-DCFPyL PET localized bone lesions in 8 of 38 (21%) patients with negative results on bone or 18F-NaF PET scans. In 8 of 18 (44%) patients, 18F-fluciclovine PET had located the same lesions as did 18F-DCFPyL PET, whereas 5 of 18 (28%) patients with negative 18F-fluciclovine findings had positive 18F-DCFPyL PET findings and 1 of 18 (6%) patients with negative 18F-DCFPyL findings had uptake in the prostate bed on 18F-fluciclovine PET. In the remaining 4 of 18 (22%) patients, 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-fluciclovine scans showed different lesions. Lastly, 43 of 72 (60%) patients had treatment changes after 18F-DCFPyL PET and, most noticeably, 17 of these patients (24% total) had lesion localization only on 18F-DCFPyL PET, despite negative results on conventional imaging. Conclusion: 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT is a promising diagnostic tool in the work-up of biochemically recurrent PC, given the high positivity rate as compared with Food and Drug Administration–approved currently available imaging modalities and its impact on clinical management in 60% of patients.