Falsch-positive – falsch-negative Befunde – Stellenwert der PSMA-PET/CT beim Staging von Patienten mit Prostatakarzinom

Maurer T, Eiber M, Schwaiger M, Gschwend JE (2016) Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Urol 13(4):226–235. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2016.26 Hofman MS, Lawrentschuk N, Francis RJ et al (2020) Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet 395(10231):1208–1216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7 Abate-Shen C, Nunes de Almeida F (2022) Establishment of the LNcaP cell line—the dawn of an era for prostate cancer research. Cancer Res 82(9):1689–1691. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-22-1065 DeMarzo AM, Nelson WG, Isaacs WB, Epstein JI (2003) Pathological and molecular aspects of prostate cancer. Lancet 361(9361):955–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12779-1 de Galiza Barbosa F, Queiroz MA, Nunes RF et al (2020) Nonprostatic diseases on PSMA PET imaging: a spectrum of benign and malignant findings. Cancer Imaging 20(1):23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-020-00300-7 Paschalis A, Sheehan B, Riisnaes R et al (2019) Prostate-specific membrane antigen heterogeneity and DNA repair defects in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 76(4):469–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.030 Banerjee SR, Pullambhatla M, Byun Y et al (2010) 68Ga-labeled inhibitors of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) for imaging prostate cancer. J Med Chem 53(14):5333–5341. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm100623e Nanni C, Schiavina R, Brunocilla E et al (2015) 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT for the detection of prostate cancer relapse: a comparison to 11C-choline PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med 40(8):e386–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000000849 Umbehr MH, Müntener M, Hany T, Sulser T, Bachmann LM (2013) The role of 11C-choline and 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/CT in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 64(1):106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.04.019 Perera M, Papa N, Roberts M et al (2020) Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer-updated diagnostic utility, sensitivity, specificity, and distribution of prostate-specific membrane antigen-avid lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 77(4):403–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.01.049 Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 79(2):243–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042 Roach PJ, Francis R, Emmett L et al (2018) The impact of 68ga-PSMA PET/CT on management intent in prostate cancer: results of an Australian prospective multicenter study. J Nucl Med 59(1):82–88. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.197160 Herlemann A, Wenter V, Kretschmer A et al (2016) Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computed tomography provides accurate staging of lymph node regions prior to lymph node dissection in patients with prostate cancer. Eur Urol 70(4):553–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.051 Kane CJ, Amling CL, Johnstone PA et al (2003) Limited value of bone scintigraphy and computed tomography in assessing biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Urology 61(3):607–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02411-1 Hope TA, Eiber M, Armstrong WR et al (2021) Diagnostic accuracy of 68ga-PSMA-11 PET for pelvic nodal metastasis detection prior to radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: a multicenter prospective phase 3 imaging trial. JAMA Oncol 7(11):1635–1642. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.3771 Roberts MJ, Maurer T, Perera M et al (2023) Using PSMA imaging for prognostication in localized and advanced prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 20(1):23–47. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-022-00670-6 Pienta KJ, Gorin MA, Rowe SP et al (2021) A phase 2/3 prospective multicenter study of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate specific membrane antigen PET/CT with. J Urol 206(1):52–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001698 Jilg CA, Drendel V, Rischke HC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of ga-68-HBED-CC-PSMA-Ligand-PET/CT before salvage lymph node dissection for recurrent prostate cancer. Theranostics 7(6):1770–1780. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.18421 Rauscher I, Maurer T, Beer AJ et al (2016) Value of 68ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET for the assessment of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence: comparison with histopathology after salvage lymphadenectomy. J Nucl Med 57(11):1713–1719. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.173492 Fendler WP, Calais J, Eiber M et al (2019) Assessment of 68ga-PSMA-11 PET accuracy in localizing recurrent prostate cancer: a prospective single-arm clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 5(6):856–863. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0096 Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I et al (2016) Diagnostic efficacy of (68)gallium-PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 195(5):1436–1443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.025 Parker CC, James ND, Brawley CD et al (2022) Radiotherapy to the prostate for men with metastatic prostate cancer in the UK and Switzerland: long-term results from the STAMPEDE randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med 19(6):e1003998. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003998 Artibani W, Porcaro AB, De Marco V, Cerruto MA, Siracusano S (2018) Management of biochemical recurrence after primary curative treatment for prostate cancer: a review. Urol Int 100(3):251–262. https://doi.org/10.1159/000481438 Jackson WC, Suresh K, Tumati V et al (2018) Intermediate endpoints after postprostatectomy radiotherapy: 5‑year distant metastasis to predict overall survival. Eur Urol 74(4):413–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.12.023 Choueiri TK, Chen MH, D’Amico AV et al (2010) Impact of postoperative prostate-specific antigen disease recurrence and the use of salvage therapy on the risk of death. Cancer 116(8):1887–1892. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25013 Kimura S, Abufaraj M, Janisch F et al (2020) Performance of [68Ga] Ga-PSMA 11 PET for detecting prostate cancer in the lymph nodes before salvage lymph node dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 23(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0156-z Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M et al (2015) Evaluation of hybrid 68ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. j Nucl Med 56(5):668–674. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.154153 Regula N, Kostaras V, Johansson S et al (2022) Comparison of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT with fluoride PET/CT for detection of bone metastatic disease in prostate cancer. Eur J Hybrid Imaging 6(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41824-022-00127-4 Afshar-Oromieh A, Avtzi E, Giesel FL et al (2015) The diagnostic value of PET/CT imaging with the (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand HBED-CC in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42(2):197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2949-6 Rauscher I, Krönke M, König M et al (2020) Matched-pair comparison of 68ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT: frequency of pitfalls and detection efficacy in biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med 61(1):51–57. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.229187 Kroenke M, Schweiger L, Horn T et al (2022) Validation of 18F-rhPSMA‑7 and 18F-rhPSMA‑7.3 PET imaging results with histopathology from salvage surgery in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 63(12):1809–1814. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.263707 Hope TA, Truillet C, Ehman EC et al (2017) 68ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging of response to androgen receptor inhibition: first human experience. j Nucl Med 58(1):81–84. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.181800 Hofman MS, Hicks RJ, Maurer T, Eiber M (2018) Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET: clinical utility in prostate cancer, normal patterns, pearls, and pitfalls. Radiographics 38(1):200–217. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170108