Biphasic GA 68-labeled prostate specific membrane antigen-11 positron emission tomography/computed tomography scans in the differential diagnosis and risk stratification of initial primary prostate cancer

Meta-analysis of 18 F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, 18 F-FDG PET/CT, and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in diagnostic efficacy of prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare 18 F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, 18 F-FDG PET/CT and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in the diagnostic value of prostate cancer.

METHOD

The Chinese and foreign databases, such as Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, etc., were systematically searched within the period from the establishment of the database to June 1, 2022. Clinical studies related to the diagnosis of prostate cancer by methods such as 18 F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, 18 F-FDG PET/CTCT, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, were researched. Two (2) investigators independently screened literatures, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias when these data were included in the studies with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Review Manager5.4, Stata 14.0, and Meta-disc 1.4 software were used for meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of different methods in the diagnose of prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven (27) studies, including 2891 subjects were included in our study. Meta-analysis results showed that the pooled sensitivities of 18 F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, 18 F-FDG PET/CT, and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT were 0.912 (95%CI: 0.883-0.936), 0.748 (95%CI: 0.698-0.795), and 0.916 (95%CI: 0.896-0.934), respectively; the pooled specification were 0.878 (0.844-0.907), 0.639 (95%CI: 0.589-0.687), and 0.734 (95%CI: 0.685-0.779), respectively; the positive likelihood ratios were 6.335 (95%CI: 4.288-9.357), 2.282 (95%CI: 1.497-3.477), and 3.593 (95%CI: 2.986-4.323), respectively; the negative likelihood ratios were 0.878 (95%CI: 0.844-0.907), 0.374 (95%CI: 0.280-0.499), and 0.110 (95%CI: 0.083-0.144), respectively; the diagnostic odds ratios were 65.125 (95%CI: 34.059-124.53), 7.094 (95%CI: 4.091-12.301), and 29.722 (95%CI: 20.141-43.863), respectively; the positive posterior probability was 64%, 38%, and 62%, respectively; the area under the SPOC curve was 0.95 (95%CI: 0.93-0.97), 0.81 (95%CI: 0.78-0.84), and 0.96 (95%CI: 0.92-0.98), respectively. The funnel plots indicated that there was no significant publication bias in the included literatures.

CONCLUSION

The current evidences showed that 18 F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT had higher diagnostic efficacy of prostate cancer compared with 18 F-FDG PET/CT, among which 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT was slightly higher in the sensitivity of the diagnosis of prostate cancer, while 18 F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT may have higher efficacy in specificity and confirmed positive rate. Due to the limitations of the quality of the included samples and literatures, the above conclusions should be further validated by expanding the sample size and improving the quality.

A Systematic Review of the Variability in Performing and Reporting Intraprostatic Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Primary Staging Studies

Context

Prostate cancer (PCa) remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths in men worldwide. Men at risk are typically offered multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and, if suspicious, a targeted biopsy. However, false-negative rates of magnetic resonance imaging are consistently 18%; therefore, there is growing interest in improving the diagnostic performance of imaging through novel technologies. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) is being utilised for PCa staging and, more recently, for intraprostatic tumour localisation. However, significant variability has been observed in how PSMA PET is performed and reported.

Objective

In this review, we aim to evaluate how pervasive this variability is in trials investigating the performance of PSMA PET in primary PCa workup.

Evidence acquisition

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, we performed an optimal search in five different databases. After removing duplicates, 65 studies were included in our review.

Evidence synthesis

Studies dated back as early as 2016, with numerous different source countries. There was variation in the reference standard for PSMA PET, with some using biopsy specimens or surgical specimens, and in some cases, a combination of the two. Similar inconsistencies were noted when studies selected histological definitions of clinically significant PCa, while some omitted their definition altogether. The most significant variations in performing PSMA PET were the radiotracer type, dose, acquisition time after injection, and the PET camera being utilised. Substantial variation in the reporting of PSMA PET was noted, with no consistency in defining what constitutes a positive intraprostatic lesion. Across 65 studies, four different definitions were used.

Conclusions

This systematic review has highlighted considerable variation in obtaining and performing a PSMA PET study in the context of primary PCa diagnosis. Given the discrepancy in how PSMA PET was performed and reported, it questions the homogony of studies from centre to centre. Standardisation of PSMA PET is required for this to become a consistently useful and reproducible modality in the diagnosis of PCa.

Patient summary

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) is being utilised for staging and localisation of prostate cancer (PCa); however, there is significant variability in performing and reporting PSMA PET. Standardisation of PSMA PET is required for results to be consistently useful and reproducible for the diagnosis of PCa.

The Role of PSMA PET/CT in the Primary Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Prostate Cancer-A Practical Clinical Review

Simple Summary

The combination of positron emission tomography (PET)-diagnostics with ligands binding to the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) has been a diagnostic milestone in the situation of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer and is gaining importance in primary diagnostics, providing a highly specific and sensitive diagnostic method in various clinical situations. However, the clinical application of this method requires a comprehensive knowledge of its advantages and disadvantages, potential pitfalls and influencing factors. This review aims to provide a practical clinical review of the currently available background data on PSMA PET/CT, as well as the clinical implications. Although a large amount of data already exist, a thorough analysis is complicated by study heterogeneity, showing the need for future systematic and prospective research.

Abstract

The importance of PSMA PET/CT in both primary diagnostics and prostate cancer recurrence has grown steadily since its introduction more than a decade ago. Over the past years, a vast amount of data have been published on the diagnostic accuracy and the impact of PSMA PET/CT on patient management. Nevertheless, a large heterogeneity between studies has made reaching a consensus difficult; this review aims to provide a comprehensive clinical review of the available scientific literature, covering the currently known data on physiological and pathological PSMA expression, influencing factors, the differences and pitfalls of various tracers, as well as the clinical implications in initial TNM-staging and in the situation of biochemical recurrence. This review has the objective of providing a practical clinical overview of the advantages and disadvantages of the examination in various clinical situations and the body of knowledge available, as well as open questions still requiring further research.