1
|
Luining WI, Boevé LMS, Hagens MJ, Meijer D, de Weijer T, Ettema RH, Knol RJJ, Roeleveld TA, Srbljin S, Weltings S, Koppes JCC, van Moorselaar RJA, van Leeuwen PJ, Cysouw MCF, Oprea-Lager DE, Vis AN. A Comparison of Globally Applied Prognostic Risk Groups and the Prevalence of Metastatic Disease on Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2024:S2588-9311(24)00097-X. [PMID: 38693019 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.04.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2024] [Revised: 03/13/2024] [Accepted: 04/18/2024] [Indexed: 05/03/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Various risk classification systems (RCSs) are used globally to stratify newly diagnosed patients with prostate cancer (PCa) into prognostic groups. OBJECTIVE To compare the predictive value of different prognostic subgroups (low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease) within the RCSs for detecting metastatic disease on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for primary staging, and to assess whether further subdivision of subgroups would be beneficial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Patients with newly diagnosed PCa, in whom PSMA-PET/CT was performed between 2017 and 2022, were studied retrospectively. Patients were stratified into risk groups based on four RCSs: European Association of Urology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG), and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The prevalence of metastatic disease on PSMA-PET/CT was compared among the subgroups within the four RCSs. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS In total, 2630 men with newly diagnosed PCa were studied. Any metastatic disease was observed in 35% (931/2630) of patients. Among patients classified as having intermediate- and high-risk disease, the prevalence of metastases ranged from approximately 12% to 46%. Two RCSs further subdivided these groups. According to the NCCN, metastatic disease was observed in 5.8%, 13%, 22%, and 62% for favorable intermediate-, unfavorable intermediate-, high-, and very-high-risk PCa, respectively. Regarding the CPG, these values were 6.9%, 13%, 21%, and 60% for the corresponding risk groups. CONCLUSIONS This study underlines the importance of nuanced risk stratification, recommending the further subdivision of intermediate- and high-risk disease given the notable variation in the prevalence of metastatic disease. PSMA-PET/CT for primary staging should be reserved for patients with unfavorable intermediate- or higher-risk disease. PATIENT SUMMARY The use of various risk classification systems in patients with prostate cancer helps identify those at a higher risk of having metastatic disease on prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography for primary staging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wietske I Luining
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | | - Marinus J Hagens
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Dennie Meijer
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Tessa de Weijer
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rosemarijn H Ettema
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Remco J J Knol
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - Ton A Roeleveld
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department Urology, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - Sandra Srbljin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zaans Medical Center, Zaandam, The Netherlands
| | - Saskia Weltings
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Urology, Zaans Medical Center, Zaandam, The Netherlands
| | - Jose C C Koppes
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Reindert J A van Moorselaar
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Pim J van Leeuwen
- Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Matthijs C F Cysouw
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - André N Vis
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ambrosini V, Carrilho Vaz S, Ahmadi Bidakhvidi N, Chanchou M, Cysouw MCF, Serani F, Voltin CA, Kraeber-Bodere F, Deroose CM, De Geus-Oei LF, Eiber M, Gnanasegaran G, Gotthardt M, Kobe C, Konijnenberg MW, Nanni C, Oprea Lager DE, Rahbar K, Taieb D, Mottaghy FM, Goffin K, Herrmann K. How to attract young talent to nuclear medicine step 1: a survey conducted by the EANM Oncology and Theranostics Committee to understand the expectations of the next generation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2023; 51:3-11. [PMID: 37689611 PMCID: PMC10684400 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-023-06389-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/11/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Valentina Ambrosini
- Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Via Massarenti 9, 40138, Bologna, Italy.
- Nuclear Medicine, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
| | - Sofia Carrilho Vaz
- Nuclear Medicine-Radiopharmacology, Champalimaud Clinical Center, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Niloefar Ahmadi Bidakhvidi
- Nuclear Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Marion Chanchou
- University Hospital Assistant in Biophysics and Nuclear Medicine, Jean Perrin Cancer Center, Clermont Auvergne University, UMR 1240 INSERM/IMoST UCA, Clermont-Ferrand, France
| | - Matthijs C F Cysouw
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Francesca Serani
- Nuclear Medicine, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Conrad-Amadeus Voltin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Francoise Kraeber-Bodere
- INSERM, CNRS, CRCI2NA, Médecine Nucléaire, Nantes Université, Université Angers, CHU Nantes, F-44000, Nantes, France
| | - Christophe M Deroose
- Nuclear Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Lioe-Fee De Geus-Oei
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, The Netherlands
- Biomedical Photonic Imaging Group, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiation Science & Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Matthias Eiber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University Munich, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | | | - Martin Gotthardt
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboudumc, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Carsten Kobe
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Mark W Konijnenberg
- Radiology & Nuclear Medicine Department, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Cristina Nanni
- Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Via Massarenti 9, 40138, Bologna, Italy
| | - Daniela E Oprea Lager
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kambiz Rahbar
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany
| | - David Taieb
- Nuclear Medicine Diagnostic Imaging and Endoradiotherapy Center Aix-Marseille University CHU de La Timone, Marseille Cedex 5, Marseille, France
| | - Felix M Mottaghy
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Karolien Goffin
- Nuclear Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Ken Herrmann
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Luining WI, Oprea-Lager DE, Vis AN, van Moorselaar RJA, Knol RJJ, Wondergem M, Boellaard R, Cysouw MCF. Optimization and validation of 18F-DCFPyL PET radiomics-based machine learning models in intermediate- to high-risk primary prostate cancer. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0293672. [PMID: 37943772 PMCID: PMC10635444 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293672] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2023] [Accepted: 10/17/2023] [Indexed: 11/12/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Radiomics extracted from prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET modeled with machine learning (ML) may be used for prediction of disease risk. However, validation of previously proposed approaches is lacking. We aimed to optimize and validate ML models based on 18F-DCFPyL-PET radiomics for the prediction of lymph-node involvement (LNI), extracapsular extension (ECE), and postoperative Gleason score (GS) in primary prostate cancer (PCa) patients. METHODS Patients with intermediate- to high-risk PCa who underwent 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT before radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph-node dissection were evaluated. The training dataset included 72 patients, the internal validation dataset 24 patients, and the external validation dataset 27 patients. PSMA-avid intra-prostatic lesions were delineated semi-automatically on PET and 480 radiomics features were extracted. Conventional PET-metrics were derived for comparative analysis. Segmentation, preprocessing, and ML methods were optimized in repeated 5-fold cross-validation (CV) on the training dataset. The trained models were tested on the combined validation dataset. Combat harmonization was applied to external radiomics data. Model performance was assessed using the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC). RESULTS The CV-AUCs in the training dataset were 0.88, 0.79 and 0.84 for LNI, ECE, and GS, respectively. In the combined validation dataset, the ML models could significantly predict GS with an AUC of 0.78 (p<0.05). However, validation AUCs for LNI and ECE prediction were not significant (0.57 and 0.63, respectively). Conventional PET metrics-based models had comparable AUCs for LNI (0.59, p>0.05) and ECE (0.66, p>0.05), but a lower AUC for GS (0.73, p<0.05). In general, Combat harmonization improved external validation AUCs (-0.03 to +0.18). CONCLUSION In internal and external validation, 18F-DCFPyL-PET radiomics-based ML models predicted high postoperative GS but not LNI or ECE in intermediate- to high-risk PCa. Therefore, the clinical benefit seems to be limited. These results underline the need for external and/or multicenter validation of PET radiomics-based ML model analyses to assess their generalizability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wietske I. Luining
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daniela E. Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - André N. Vis
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Reindert J. A. van Moorselaar
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Remco J. J. Knol
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - Maurits Wondergem
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - Ronald Boellaard
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Matthijs C. F. Cysouw
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Eertink JJ, Zwezerijnen GJC, Cysouw MCF, Wiegers SE, Pfaehler EAG, Lugtenburg PJ, van der Holt B, Hoekstra OS, de Vet HCW, Zijlstra JM, Boellaard R. Comparing lesion and feature selections to predict progression in newly diagnosed DLBCL patients with FDG PET/CT radiomics features. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2022; 49:4642-4651. [PMID: 35925442 PMCID: PMC9606052 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-022-05916-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2022] [Accepted: 07/14/2022] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Biomarkers that can accurately predict outcome in DLBCL patients are urgently needed. Radiomics features extracted from baseline [18F]-FDG PET/CT scans have shown promising results. This study aims to investigate which lesion- and feature-selection approaches/methods resulted in the best prediction of progression after 2 years. METHODS A total of 296 patients were included. 485 radiomics features (n = 5 conventional PET, n = 22 morphology, n = 50 intensity, n = 408 texture) were extracted for all individual lesions and at patient level, where all lesions were aggregated into one VOI. 18 features quantifying dissemination were extracted at patient level. Several lesion selection approaches were tested (largest or hottest lesion, patient level [all with/without dissemination], maximum or median of all lesions) and compared to the predictive value of our previously published model. Several data reduction methods were applied (principal component analysis, recursive feature elimination (RFE), factor analysis, and univariate selection). The predictive value of all models was tested using a fivefold cross-validation approach with 50 repeats with and without oversampling, yielding the mean cross-validated AUC (CV-AUC). Additionally, the relative importance of individual radiomics features was determined. RESULTS Models with conventional PET and dissemination features showed the highest predictive value (CV-AUC: 0.72-0.75). Dissemination features had the highest relative importance in these models. No lesion selection approach showed significantly higher predictive value compared to our previous model. Oversampling combined with RFE resulted in highest CV-AUCs. CONCLUSION Regardless of the applied lesion selection or feature selection approach and feature reduction methods, patient level conventional PET features and dissemination features have the highest predictive value. Trial registration number and date: EudraCT: 2006-005174-42, 01-08-2008.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jakoba J Eertink
- Department of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. .,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Gerben J C Zwezerijnen
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Matthijs C F Cysouw
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sanne E Wiegers
- Department of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Pieternella J Lugtenburg
- Department of Hematology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Wytemaweg 80, 3015 CN, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Bronno van der Holt
- Department of Hematology, HOVON Data Center, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Otto S Hoekstra
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Henrica C W de Vet
- Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Josée M Zijlstra
- Department of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ronald Boellaard
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Bodar YJL, Koene BPF, Jansen BHE, Cysouw MCF, Meijer D, Hendrikse NH, Vis AN, Boellaard R, Oprea-Lager DE. SUVs Are Adequate Measures of Lesional 18F-DCFPyL Uptake in Patients with Low Prostate Cancer Disease Burden. J Nucl Med 2021; 62:1264-1269. [PMID: 33509971 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.260232] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2020] [Accepted: 01/03/2021] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
In prostate cancer (PCa) patients, the tumor-to-blood ratio (TBR) has been validated as the preferred simplified method for lesional 18F-DCFPyL (a radiolabeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand) uptake quantification on PET. In contrast to SUVs, the TBR accounts for variability in arterial input functions caused by differences in total tumor burden between patients (the sink effect). However, TBR depends strongly on tracer uptake interval and has worse repeatability and is less applicable in clinical practice than SUVs. We investigated whether SUV could provide adequate quantification of 18F-DCFPyL uptake on PET/CT in a patient cohort with low PCa burden. Methods: In total, 116 patients with PCa undergoing 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT imaging were retrospectively included. All 18F-DCFPyL-avid lesions suspected of being PCa were semiautomatically delineated. SUVpeak was plotted against TBR for the most intense lesion of each patient. The correlation of SUVpeak and TBR was evaluated using linear regression and was stratified for patients undergoing PET/CT for primary staging, patients undergoing restaging at biochemical recurrence, and patients with metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Moreover, the correlation was evaluated as a function of tracer uptake time, prostate-specific antigen level, and PET-positive tumor volume. Results: In total, 436 lesions were delineated (median, 1 per patient; range, 1-66). SUVpeak correlated well with TBR in patients with PCa and a total tumor volume of less than 200 cm3 (R 2 = 0.931). The correlation between SUV and TBR was not affected by disease setting, prostate-specific antigen level, or tumor volume. SUVpeak depended less on tracer uptake time than did TBR. Conclusion: For 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT, SUVpeak correlates strongly with TBR. Therefore, it is a valuable simplified, semiquantitative measurement in patients with low-volume PCa (<200 cm3). SUVpeak can therefore be applied in 18F-DCFPyL PET assessment as an imaging biomarker to characterize tumors and to monitor treatment outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yves J L Bodar
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; .,Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Prostate Cancer Network, Noord Holland, The Netherlands; and
| | - Berend P F Koene
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bernard H E Jansen
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Prostate Cancer Network, Noord Holland, The Netherlands; and
| | - Matthijs C F Cysouw
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Dennie Meijer
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Prostate Cancer Network, Noord Holland, The Netherlands; and
| | - N Harry Hendrikse
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - André N Vis
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Prostate Cancer Network, Noord Holland, The Netherlands; and
| | - Ronald Boellaard
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
de Vries BM, Golla SSV, Ebenau J, Verfaillie SCJ, Timmers T, Heeman F, Cysouw MCF, van Berckel BNM, van der Flier WM, Yaqub M, Boellaard R. Classification of negative and positive 18F-florbetapir brain PET studies in subjective cognitive decline patients using a convolutional neural network. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2020; 48:721-728. [PMID: 32875431 PMCID: PMC8036183 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-05006-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2020] [Accepted: 08/18/2020] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
Purpose Visual reading of 18F-florbetapir positron emission tomography (PET) scans is used in the diagnostic process of patients with cognitive disorders for assessment of amyloid-ß (Aß) depositions. However, this can be time-consuming, and difficult in case of borderline amyloid pathology. Computer-aided pattern recognition can be helpful in this process but needs to be validated. The aim of this work was to develop, train, validate and test a convolutional neural network (CNN) for discriminating between Aß negative and positive 18F-florbetapir PET scans in patients with subjective cognitive decline (SCD). Methods 18F-florbetapir PET images were acquired and visually assessed. The SCD cohort consisted of 133 patients from the SCIENCe cohort and 22 patients from the ADNI database. From the SCIENCe cohort, standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) images were computed. From the ADNI database, SUVR images were extracted. 2D CNNs (axial, coronal and sagittal) were built to capture features of the scans. The SCIENCe scans were randomly divided into training and validation set (5-fold cross-validation), and the ADNI scans were used as test set. Performance was evaluated based on average accuracy, sensitivity and specificity from the cross-validation. Next, the best performing CNN was evaluated on the test set. Results The sagittal 2D-CNN classified the SCIENCe scans with the highest average accuracy of 99% ± 2 (SD), sensitivity of 97% ± 7 and specificity of 100%. The ADNI scans were classified with a 95% accuracy, 100% sensitivity and 92.3% specificity. Conclusion The 2D-CNN algorithm can classify Aß negative and positive 18F-florbetapir PET scans with high performance in SCD patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bart Marius de Vries
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sandeep S V Golla
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jarith Ebenau
- Alzheimer Center and department of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sander C J Verfaillie
- Alzheimer Center and department of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Tessa Timmers
- Alzheimer Center and department of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Fiona Heeman
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Matthijs C F Cysouw
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bart N M van Berckel
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Alzheimer Center and department of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Wiesje M van der Flier
- Alzheimer Center and department of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maqsood Yaqub
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ronald Boellaard
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Cysouw MCF, Jansen BHE, van de Brug T, Oprea-Lager DE, Pfaehler E, de Vries BM, van Moorselaar RJA, Hoekstra OS, Vis AN, Boellaard R. Machine learning-based analysis of [ 18F]DCFPyL PET radiomics for risk stratification in primary prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2020; 48:340-349. [PMID: 32737518 PMCID: PMC7835295 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-04971-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2020] [Accepted: 07/22/2020] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Quantitative prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET analysis may provide for non-invasive and objective risk stratification of primary prostate cancer (PCa) patients. We determined the ability of machine learning-based analysis of quantitative [18F]DCFPyL PET metrics to predict metastatic disease or high-risk pathological tumor features. METHODS In a prospective cohort study, 76 patients with intermediate- to high-risk PCa scheduled for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection underwent pre-operative [18F]DCFPyL PET-CT. Primary tumors were delineated using 50-70% peak isocontour thresholds on images with and without partial-volume correction (PVC). Four hundred and eighty standardized radiomic features were extracted per tumor. Random forest models were trained to predict lymph node involvement (LNI), presence of any metastasis, Gleason score ≥ 8, and presence of extracapsular extension (ECE). For comparison, models were also trained using standard PET features (SUVs, volume, total PSMA uptake). Model performance was validated using 50 times repeated 5-fold cross-validation yielding the mean receiver-operator characteristic curve AUC. RESULTS The radiomics-based machine learning models predicted LNI (AUC 0.86 ± 0.15, p < 0.01), nodal or distant metastasis (AUC 0.86 ± 0.14, p < 0.01), Gleason score (0.81 ± 0.16, p < 0.01), and ECE (0.76 ± 0.12, p < 0.01). The highest AUCs reached using standard PET metrics were lower than those of radiomics-based models. For LNI and metastasis prediction, PVC and a higher delineation threshold improved model stability. Machine learning pre-processing methods had a minor impact on model performance. CONCLUSION Machine learning-based analysis of quantitative [18F]DCFPyL PET metrics can predict LNI and high-risk pathological tumor features in primary PCa patients. These findings indicate that PSMA expression detected on PET is related to both primary tumor histopathology and metastatic tendency. Multicenter external validation is needed to determine the benefits of using radiomics versus standard PET metrics in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthijs C F Cysouw
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Bernard H E Jansen
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Urology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Tim van de Brug
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Elisabeth Pfaehler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Medical Imaging Center, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Bart M de Vries
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Reindert J A van Moorselaar
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Urology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Otto S Hoekstra
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - André N Vis
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Urology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ronald Boellaard
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Jansen BHE, Cysouw MCF, Vis AN, van Moorselaar RJA, Voortman J, Bodar YJL, Schober PR, Hendrikse NH, Hoekstra OS, Boellaard R, Oprea-Lager DE. Repeatability of Quantitative 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT Measurements in Metastatic Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med 2020; 61:1320-1325. [PMID: 31924729 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.236075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2019] [Accepted: 01/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Quantitative evaluation of radiolabeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET scans may be used to monitor treatment response in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). To interpret longitudinal differences in PSMA uptake, the intrinsic variability of tracer uptake in PCa lesions needs to be defined. The aim of this study was to investigate the repeatability of quantitative PET/CT measurements using 18F-DCFPyL ([2-(3-(1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl)-ureido)-pentanedioic acid], a second-generation 18F-PSMA-ligand) in patients with PCa. Methods: Twelve patients with metastatic PCa were prospectively included, of whom 2 were excluded from final analyses. Patients received 2 whole-body 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT scans (median dose, 317 MBq; uptake time, 120 min) within a median of 4 d (range, 1-11 d). After semiautomatic (isocontour-based) tumor delineation, the following lesion-based metrics were derived: mean, peak, and maximum tumor-to-blood ratio; SUVmean, SUVpeak, and SUVmax normalized to body weight; tumor volume; and total lesion uptake (TLU). Additionally, patient-based total tumor volume (TTV) (sum of PSMA-positive tumor volumes) and total tumor burden (TTB) (sum of all lesion TLUs) were derived. Repeatability was analyzed using repeatability coefficients (RC) and intraclass correlation coefficients. Additionally, the effect of point-spread function (PSF) image reconstruction on the repeatability of uptake metrics was evaluated. Results: In total, 36 18F-DCFPyL PET-positive lesions were analyzed (≤5 lesions per patient). The RCs for mean, peak, and maximum tumor-to-blood ratio were 31.8%, 31.7%, and 37.3%, respectively. For SUVmean, SUVpeak, and SUVmax, the RCs were 24.4%, 25.3%, and 31.0%, respectively. All intraclass correlation coefficients were at least 0.97. Tumor volume delineations were quite repeatable, with an RC of 28.1% for individual lesion volumes and 17.0% for TTV. TTB had an RC of 23.2% and 33.4% when based on SUVmean and mean tumor-to-blood ratio, respectively. Small lesions (<4.2 cm3) had worse repeatability for volume measurements. The repeatability of SUVpeak, TLU, and all patient-level metrics was not affected by PSF reconstruction. Conclusion: 18F-DCFPyL uptake measurements are quite repeatable and can be used for clinical validation in future treatment response assessment studies. Patient-based TTV may be preferred for multicenter studies because its repeatability was both high and robust to different image reconstructions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bernard H E Jansen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands .,Department of Urology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Matthijs C F Cysouw
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - André N Vis
- Department of Urology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Reindert J A van Moorselaar
- Department of Urology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jens Voortman
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Yves J L Bodar
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Urology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Patrick R Schober
- Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and
| | - N Harry Hendrikse
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Otto S Hoekstra
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ronald Boellaard
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Cysouw MCF, Kramer GM, Heijtel D, Schuit RC, Morris MJ, van den Eertwegh AJM, Voortman J, Hoekstra OS, Oprea-Lager DE, Boellaard R. Sensitivity of 18F-fluorodihydrotestosterone PET-CT to count statistics and reconstruction protocol in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. EJNMMI Res 2019; 9:70. [PMID: 31363939 PMCID: PMC6667590 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-019-0531-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2019] [Accepted: 07/12/2019] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Objectives Whole body [18F]-fluorodihydrotestosterone positron emission tomography ([18F]FDHT PET) imaging directly targets the androgen receptor and is a promising prognostic and predictive biomarker in metastatic castration-resistant cancer (mCRPC). To optimize [18F]FDHT PET-CT for diagnostic and response assessment purposes, we assessed how count statistics and reconstruction protocol affect its accuracy, repeatability, and lesion detectability. Methods Whole body [18F]FDHT PET-CT scans were acquired on an analogue PET-CT on two consecutive days in 14 mCRPC patients harbouring a total of 336 FDHT-avid lesions. Images were acquired at 45 min post-injection of 200 MBq [18F]FDHT at 3 min per bed position. List-mode PET data were split on a count-wise basis, yielding two statistically independent scans with each 50% of counts. Images were reconstructed according to current EANM Research Ltd. (EARL1, 4 mm voxel) and novel EARL2 guidelines (4 mm voxel + PSF). Per lesion, we measured SUVpeak, SUVmax, SUVmean, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). SUV was normalized to dose per bodyweight as well as to the parent plasma input curve integral. Variability was assessed with repeatability coefficients (RCs). Results Count reduction increased liver coefficient of variation from 9.0 to 12.5% and from 10.8 to 13.2% for EARL1 and EARL2, respectively. SUVs of EARL2 images were 12.0–21.7% higher than EARL1. SUVs of 100% and 50% count data were highly correlated (R2 > 0.98; slope = 0.97–1.01; ICC = 0.99–1.00). Intrascan variability was volume-dependent, and count reduction resulted in higher intrascan variability for EARL2 than EARL1 images. Intrascan RCs were lowest for SUVmean (8.5–10.6%), intermediate for SUVpeak (12.0–16.0%), and highest for SUVmax (17.8–22.2%). Count reduction increased test-retest variance non-significantly (p > 0.05) for all SUV types and normalizations. For SUVpeak at 50% of counts, RCs remained < 30% when small lesions were excluded. Splitting data reduced CNR by median 4.6% (interquartile range 1.2–8.7%) and 4.6% (interquartile range 1.2–8.7%) for EARL1 and EARL2 images, respectively. Conclusions Reducing [18F]FDHT PET acquisition time from 3 min to 1.5 per bed position resulted in a repeatability of SUVpeak (bodyweight) remaining ≤ 30%, which is generally acceptable for response monitoring purposes. However, EARL2 reconstruction was more affected, especially for SUVmax whose repeatability tended to exceed 30%. Lesion detectability was only slightly impaired by reducing acquisition time, which might not be clinically relevant in mCRPC. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13550-019-0531-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthijs C F Cysouw
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Gerbrand M Kramer
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Robert C Schuit
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Michael J Morris
- Department of Medicine, Genitourinary Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 353 E 68th St, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - Alfons J M van den Eertwegh
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jens Voortman
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Otto S Hoekstra
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ronald Boellaard
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Jansen BHE, Yaqub M, Voortman J, Cysouw MCF, Windhorst AD, Schuit RC, Kramer GM, van den Eertwegh AJM, Schwarte LA, Hendrikse NH, Vis AN, van Moorselaar RJA, Hoekstra OS, Boellaard R, Oprea-Lager DE. Simplified Methods for Quantification of 18F-DCFPyL Uptake in Patients with Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med 2019; 60:1730-1735. [PMID: 31000583 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.227520] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2019] [Accepted: 04/08/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Radiolabeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET has demonstrated promising results for prostate cancer (PCa) imaging. Quantification of PSMA radiotracer uptake is desired as it enables reliable interpretation of PET images, use of PSMA uptake as an imaging biomarker for tumor characterization, and evaluation of treatment effects. The aim of this study was to perform a full pharmacokinetic analysis of 2-(3-(1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl)-ureido)-pentanedioic acid (18F-DCFPyL), a second-generation 18F-labeled PSMA ligand. On the basis of the pharmacokinetic analysis (reference method), simplified methods for quantification of 18F-DCFPyL uptake were validated. Methods: Eight patients with metastasized PCa were included. Dynamic PET acquisitions were performed at 0-60 and 90-120 min after injection of a median dose of 313 MBq of 18F-DCFPyL (range, 292-314 MBq). Continuous and manual arterial blood sampling provided calibrated plasma tracer input functions. Time-activity curves were derived for each PCa metastasis, and 18F-DCFPyL kinetics were described using standard plasma input tissue-compartment models. Simplified methods for quantification of 18F-DCFPyL uptake (SUVs; tumor-to-blood ratios [TBRs]) were correlated with kinetic parameter estimates obtained from full pharmacokinetic analysis. Results: In total, 46 metastases were evaluated. A reversible 2-tissue-compartment model was preferred for 18F-DCFPyL kinetics in 59% of the metastases. The observed k 4 was small, however, resulting in nearly irreversible kinetics during the course of the PET study. Hence, k 4 was fixated (0.015) and net influx rate, Ki, was preferred as the reference kinetic parameter. Whole-blood TBR provided an excellent correlation with Ki from full kinetic analysis (R 2 = 0.97). This TBR could be simplified further by replacing the blood samples with an image-based, single measurement of blood activity in the ascending aorta (image-based TBR, R 2 = 0.96). SUV correlated poorly with Ki (R 2 = 0.47 and R 2 = 0.60 for SUV normalized to body weight and lean body mass, respectively), most likely because of deviant blood activity concentrations (i.e., tumor tracer input) in patients with higher tumor volumes. Conclusion: 18F-DCFPyL kinetics in PCa metastases are best described by a reversible 2-tissue-compartment model. Image-based TBRs were validated as a simplified method to quantify 18F-DCFPyL uptake and might be applied to clinical, whole-body PET scans. SUV does not provide reliable quantification of 18F-DCFPyL uptake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bernard H E Jansen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Urology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maqsood Yaqub
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jens Voortman
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Matthijs C F Cysouw
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Albert D Windhorst
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Robert C Schuit
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Gerbrand M Kramer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Alfons J M van den Eertwegh
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lothar A Schwarte
- Department of Anesthesiology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and
| | - N Harry Hendrikse
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Anesthesiology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and
| | - André N Vis
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Reindert J A van Moorselaar
- Department of Urology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Otto S Hoekstra
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ronald Boellaard
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VU University Medical Center), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Cysouw MCF, Golla SVS, Frings V, Smit EF, Hoekstra OS, Kramer GM, Boellaard R. Partial-volume correction in dynamic PET-CT: effect on tumor kinetic parameter estimation and validation of simplified metrics. EJNMMI Res 2019; 9:12. [PMID: 30715647 PMCID: PMC6362178 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-019-0483-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2018] [Accepted: 01/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Partial-volume effects generally result in an underestimation of tumor tracer uptake on PET-CT for small lesions, necessitating partial-volume correction (PVC) for accurate quantification. However, investigation of PVC in dynamic oncological PET studies to date is scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate PVC’s impact on tumor kinetic parameter estimation from dynamic PET-CT acquisitions and subsequent validation of simplified semi-quantitative metrics. Ten patients with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer underwent dynamic 18F-fluorothymidine PET-CT before, 7 days after, and 28 days after commencing treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Parametric PVC was applied using iterative deconvolution without and with highly constrained backprojection (HYPR) denoising, respectively. Using an image-derived input function with venous parent plasma calibration, we estimated full kinetic parameters VT, K1, and k3/k4 (BPND) using a reversible two-tissue compartment model, and simplified metrics (SUV and tumor-to-blood ratio) at 50–60 min post-injection. Results PVC had a non-linear effect on measured activity concentrations per timeframe. PVC significantly changed each kinetic parameter, with a median increase in VT of 11.8% (up to 25.1%) and 10.8% (up to 21.7%) without and with HYPR, respectively. Relative changes in kinetic parameter estimates vs. simplified metrics after applying PVC were poorly correlated (correlations 0.36–0.62; p < 0.01). PVC increased correlations between simplified metrics and VT from 0.82 and 0.81 (p < 0.01) to 0.90 and 0.88 (p < 0.01) for SUV and TBR, respectively, albeit non-significantly. PVC also increased correlations between treatment-induced changes in simplified metrics vs. VT at 7 (SUV) and 28 (SUV and TBR) days after treatment start non-significantly. Delineation on partial-volume corrected PET images resulted in a median decrease in metabolic tumor volume of 14.3% (IQR − 22.1 to − 7.5%), and increased the effect of PVC on kinetic parameter estimates. Conclusion PVC has a significant impact on tumor kinetic parameter estimation from dynamic PET-CT data, which differs from its effect on simplified metrics. However, it affected validation of these simplified metrics both as single measurements and as biomarkers of treatment response only to a small extent. Future dynamic PET studies should preferably incorporate PVC. Trial registration Dutch Trial Register, NTR3557. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13550-019-0483-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M C F Cysouw
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - S V S Golla
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - V Frings
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - E F Smit
- Department of Thoracic Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - O S Hoekstra
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - G M Kramer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - R Boellaard
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Jansen BHE, Kramer GM, Cysouw MCF, Yaqub MM, de Keizer B, Lavalaye J, Booij J, Vargas HA, Morris MJ, Vis AN, van Moorselaar RJA, Hoekstra OS, Boellaard R, Oprea-Lager DE. Healthy Tissue Uptake of 68Ga-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen, 18F-DCFPyL, 18F-Fluoromethylcholine, and 18F-Dihydrotestosterone. J Nucl Med 2019; 60:1111-1117. [PMID: 30630941 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.118.222505] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2018] [Accepted: 12/17/2018] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
PET is increasingly used for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics. Important PCa radiotracers include 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen HBED-CC (68Ga-PSMA), 18F-DCFPyL, 18F-fluoromethylcholine (18F-FCH), and 18F-dihydrotestosterone (18F-FDHT). Knowledge on the variability of tracer uptake in healthy tissues is important for accurate PET interpretation, because malignancy is suspected only if the uptake of a lesion contrasts with its background. Therefore, the aim of this study was to quantify uptake variability of PCa tracers in healthy tissues and identify stable reference regions for PET interpretation. Methods: A total of 232 PCa PET/CT scans from multiple hospitals was analyzed, including 87 68Ga-PSMA scans, 50 18F-DCFPyL scans, 68 18F-FCH scans, and 27 18F-FDHT scans. Tracer uptake was assessed in the blood pool, lung, liver, bone marrow, and muscle using several SUVs (SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak). Variability in uptake between patients was analyzed using the coefficient of variation (COV%). For all tracers, SUV reference ranges (95th percentiles) were calculated, which could be applicable as image-based quality control for future PET acquisitions. Results: For 68Ga-PSMA, the lowest uptake variability was observed in the blood pool (COV, 19.9%), which was significantly more stable than all other tissues (COV, 29.8%-35.2%; P = 0.001-0.024). For 18F-DCFPyL, the lowest variability was observed in the blood pool and liver (COV, 14.4% and 21.7%, respectively; P = 0.001-0.003). The least variable 18F-FCH uptake was observed in the liver, blood pool, and bone marrow (COV, 16.8%-24.2%; P = 0.001-0.012). For 18F-FDHT, low uptake variability was observed in all tissues, except the lung (COV, 14.6%-23.6%; P = 0.001-0.040). The different SUV types had limited effect on variability (COVs within 3 percentage points). Conclusion: In this multicenter analysis, healthy tissues with limited uptake variability were identified, which may serve as reference regions for PCa PET interpretation. These reference regions include the blood pool for 68Ga-PSMA and 18F-DCFPyL and the liver for 18F-FCH and 18F-FDHT. Healthy tissue SUV reference ranges are presented and applicable as image-based quality control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bernard H E Jansen
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Gem M Kramer
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Matthijs C F Cysouw
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maqsood M Yaqub
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bart de Keizer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jules Lavalaye
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, St-Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Jan Booij
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and
| | | | - Michael J Morris
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - André N Vis
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Reindert J A van Moorselaar
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Otto S Hoekstra
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ronald Boellaard
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Cysouw MCF, Kramer GM, Schoonmade LJ, Boellaard R, de Vet HCW, Hoekstra OS. Impact of partial-volume correction in oncological PET studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017; 44:2105-2116. [PMID: 28776088 PMCID: PMC5656693 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-017-3775-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2017] [Accepted: 07/02/2017] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
Purpose Positron-emission tomography can be useful in oncology for diagnosis, (re)staging, determining prognosis, and response assessment. However, partial-volume effects hamper accurate quantification of lesions <2–3× the PET system’s spatial resolution, and the clinical impact of this is not evident. This systematic review provides an up-to-date overview of studies investigating the impact of partial-volume correction (PVC) in oncological PET studies. Methods We searched in PubMed and Embase databases according to the PRISMA statement, including studies from inception till May 9, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened all abstracts and eligible full-text articles and performed quality assessment according to QUADAS-2 and QUIPS criteria. For a set of similar diagnostic studies, we statistically pooled the results using bivariate meta-regression. Results Thirty-one studies were eligible for inclusion. Overall, study quality was good. For diagnosis and nodal staging, PVC yielded a strong trend of increased sensitivity at expense of specificity. Meta-analysis of six studies investigating diagnosis of pulmonary nodules (679 lesions) showed no significant change in diagnostic accuracy after PVC (p = 0.222). Prognostication was not improved for non-small cell lung cancer and esophageal cancer, whereas it did improve for head and neck cancer. Response assessment was not improved by PVC for (locally advanced) breast cancer or rectal cancer, and it worsened in metastatic colorectal cancer. Conclusions The accumulated evidence to date does not support routine application of PVC in standard clinical PET practice. Consensus on the preferred PVC methodology in oncological PET should be reached. Partial-volume-corrected data should be used as adjuncts to, but not yet replacement for, uncorrected data. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3775-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthijs C F Cysouw
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Gerbrand M Kramer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Linda J Schoonmade
- Department of Medical Library, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Ronald Boellaard
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Henrica C W de Vet
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Otto S Hoekstra
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Cysouw MCF, Kramer GM, Frings V, De Langen AJ, Wondergem MJ, Kenny LM, Aboagye EO, Kobe C, Wolf J, Hoekstra OS, Boellaard R. Baseline and longitudinal variability of normal tissue uptake values of [ 18F]-fluorothymidine-PET images. Nucl Med Biol 2017; 51:18-24. [PMID: 28528264 DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2017.05.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2017] [Revised: 04/14/2017] [Accepted: 05/04/2017] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE [18F]-fluorothymidine ([18F]-FLT) is a PET-tracer enabling in-vivo visualization and quantification of tumor cell proliferation. For qualitative and quantitative analysis, adequate knowledge of normal tissue uptake is indispensable. This study aimed to quantitatively investigate baseline tracer uptake of blood pool, lung, liver and bone marrow and their precision, and to assess the longitudinal effect of systemic treatment on biodistribution. METHODS 18F-FLT-PET(/CT) scans (dynamic or static) of 90 treatment-naïve oncological patients were retrospectively evaluated. Twenty-three patients received double baseline scans, and another 39 patients were also scanned early and late during systemic treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Reproducible volume of interest were placed in blood pool, lung, liver, and bone marrow. For semi-quantitative analysis, SUVmean, SUVmax, and SUVpeak with several normalizations were derived. RESULTS SUVs of basal lung, liver, and bone marrow were not significantly different between averaged dynamic and static images, in contrast with blood pool and apical lung. Highest repeatability was seen for liver and bone marrow, with repeatability coefficients of 18.6% and 20.4% when using SUVpeak. Systemic treatment with TKIs both increased and decreased normal tissue tracer uptake at early and late time points during treatment. CONCLUSION Simultaneous evaluation of liver and bone marrow uptake in longitudinal response studies may be used to assess image quality, where changes in uptake outside repeatability limits should trigger investigators to perform additional quality control on individual PET images. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE For [18F]-FLT PET images, liver and bone marrow have low intra-patient variability when quantified with SUVpeak, but may be affected by systemic treatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE In [18F]-FLT-PET response monitoring trials, liver and bone marrow uptake may be used for quality control of [18F]-FLT PET images.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthijs C F Cysouw
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Gerbrand M Kramer
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Virginie Frings
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Adrianus J De Langen
- Department of Pulmonary diseases, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mariëlle J Wondergem
- Department of Hematology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Laura M Kenny
- Imperial College London, and Hammersmith Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Eric O Aboagye
- Imperial College London, and Hammersmith Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Carsten Kobe
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Köln Bonn, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Jürgen Wolf
- Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Köln Bonn, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Otto S Hoekstra
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ronald Boellaard
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Bouman-Wammes EW, van Dodewaard-De Jong JM, Dahele M, Cysouw MCF, Hoekstra OS, van Moorselaar RJA, Piet MAH, Verberne HJ, Bins AD, Verheul HMW, Slotman BJ, Oprea-Lager DE, Van den Eertwegh AJM. Benefits of Using Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Patients With Metachronous Oligometastases of Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Detected by [18F]fluoromethylcholine PET/CT. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017; 15:e773-e782. [PMID: 28462855 DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2017.03.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2017] [Revised: 03/13/2017] [Accepted: 03/18/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION For patients with oligometastatic recurrence of prostate cancer (PC), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) represents an attractive treatment option, as it is safe without major side effects. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of SBRT in delaying the start of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). PATIENTS AND METHODS Forty-three patients treated with SBRT for oligometastatic recurrence (< 5 metastases) of hormone-sensitive PC, defined with [18F]fluoromethylcholine positron emission tomography/computed tomography were included. As a control group, 20 patients with oligometastatic disease not treated with SBRT were identified from another hospital. Data were collected retrospectively. RESULTS A post-SBRT prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response was seen in 29 (67.4%) of 43 patients. Median ADT-free survival (ADT-FS) was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.7-19.5) for the whole group, and 25.7 months (95% CI, 9.0-42.4) for patients with a PSA response. Seven patients were treated with a second course of SBRT because of oligometastatic disease recurrence; the ADT-FS in this group was 32.1 months (95% CI, 7.8-56.5). Compared with the control group, the ADT-FS from first diagnosis of metastasis was significantly longer, with 17.3 (95% CI, 13.7-20.9) months versus 4.19 months (95% CI, 0.0-9.0), P < .001. Also, time between diagnosis of the metastasis until progression of disease during ADT use (castration resistance) was longer for the SBRT-treated patients (mean 66.6, 95% CI, 53.5-79.8, vs. 36.41, 95% CI, 26.0-46.8 months, P = .020). There were no grade III or IV adverse events reported. CONCLUSION SBRT can safely and effectively be used to postpone ADT in appropriately selected patients with oligometastatic recurrence of PC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esther W Bouman-Wammes
- Department of Medical Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | | - Max Dahele
- Department of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Matthijs C F Cysouw
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Otto S Hoekstra
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Maartje A H Piet
- Department of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hein J Verberne
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Adriaan D Bins
- Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Henk M W Verheul
- Department of Medical Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ben J Slotman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|