Clinical protocols to monitor efficacy of [ <sup>177</sup> Lu]Lu-PSMA radiopharmaceutical therapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Abstract
39 Background: To assess the prognostic value of post-therapy [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA (LuPSMA)-SPECT/CT by visual RECIP 1.0 during LuPSMA radioligand therapy and to develop an evidence-based clinical protocol to monitor efficacy to LuPSMA. Methods: Patients who received LuPSMA between April 2019 and November 2023 and who underwent at least two LuPSMA-SPECT/CT (SPECT) were included. Three independent readers interpreted pairs of baseline and interim LuPSMA-SPECT/CT after 2 cycles of therapy for visual Response Evaluation Criteria In PSMA-imaging (RECIP) 1.0. The primary outcome was the prognostic value of post-therapeutic SPECT by RECIP 1.0 for overall survival after LuPSMA. The secondary outcome was the agreement between SPECT and PSMA-PET/CT (PET) performed after 2 cycles of LuPSMA. Results: 105 patients were included. In SPECT PD was associated with shorter OS compared to SD (HR=2.51;95%;CI:1.19-5.28;p=0.015) and to PR (HR=6.48;95%;CI:2.67-15.70;p<0.001). 73/105 (69.5%) had a PET after 2 cycles. 7/73 (10%), 30/73 41%), 22/73 (30%), and 30/73 (41%) patients had a tumor progression by SPECT, PET, SPECT+PSA, and PET+PSA, respectively. All 7/73 (10%) patients with PD by SPECT had PD by PET. The C-index for SPECT was inferior to the one of SPECT+PSA (0.54 vs 0.62; p=0.03) and PET (0.54 vs 0.66; p<0.001) while SPECT+PSA did not differ significantly from PET (0.62 vs 0.66; p=0.07). Conclusions: Post-therapeutic SPECT/CT by RECIP 1.0 after 2 cycles of LuPSMA therapy is prognostic for overall survival and can be used for treatment response evaluation purposes. PSMA-PET/CT identified significantly higher number of patients with progressive disease compared to LuPSMA-SPECT/CT. A composite classification system of LuPSMA-SPECT/CT+PSA was not significantly different from interim PSMA-PET/CT for response evaluation to LuPSMA.
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Lena Unterrainer
Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
Nicolas De leiris
University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
Marcus Unterrainer
Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
Harun Ilhan
Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
Astrid Delker
Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
Linus Hempel
LMU Munich, Nuclear Medicine, Munich, Germany
Zachary Ells
Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
Joseph Zahner
University of Munich, Munich, Germany
Adrien Holzgreve
Mathias J. Zacherl
University of Munich, Munich, Germany
Jozefina Casuscelli
Kevin Kiraz
CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
Julien Leenhardt
CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
Emmanuelle Jacquet
University of Grenoble, Grenoble, France
Jerome Long
Groupe Hospitalier Mutualiste de Grenoble, Grenoble, France
Mathieu Laramas
University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
Channing Judith Paller
Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
Lilja B Solnes
Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
Andrei Gafita
Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
Loic Djaileb