Diagnostic performance of <sup>18</sup> F-flotufolastat PET/CT compared with conventional imaging for detection of pelvic lymph node metastases in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: Descriptive post-hoc analysis from the phase 3 LIGHTHOUSE study.
Abstract
311 Background: 18 F-Flotufolastat is a prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeting PET radiopharmaceutical approved in the US for diagnostic use in men with prostate cancer. The Phase 3 LIGHTHOUSE study (NCT04186819) assessed 18 F-flotufolastat in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer planned for radical prostatectomy (RP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). This post-hoc descriptive analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of 18 F-flotufolastat with baseline conventional imaging (CT or MRI). Methods: LIGHTHOUSE enrolled patients with newly diagnosed unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) to very high-risk prostate cancer. Patients underwent PET/CT 50–70 min after 18 F-flotufolastat (296 MBq ± 20%) administration. 18 F-Flotufolastat scans were evaluated by three blinded independent central readers. Patients had baseline conventional imaging with CT, MRI or bone scan, within 60 days before screening or at least 24 h before 18 F-flotufolastat PET. Baseline conventional imaging was evaluated by local read. Histopathology was used as standard of truth (SoT), with ≥ 1 PET positive lesion and one histopathological confirmed lymph node (LN) classed as true positive (TP). Study endpoints included patient-level sensitivity and specificity for the detection of pelvic LN metastases. This post-hoc descriptive analysis explored the sensitivity and specificity of baseline conventional imaging with CT and/or MRI in LIGHTHOUSE with the sensitivity and specificity reported for 18 F-flotufolastat PET among the efficacy analysis population (EAP). Results: In total, 296 patients (33% with UIR disease) underwent 18 F-flotufolastat PET followed by RP and PLND (EAP). Within the LIGHTHOUSE EAP, the majority read patient-level sensitivity for detecting pelvic LN metastasis with 18 F-flotufolastat was 24% (23–30% across readers) and specificity was 96% (93–97% across readers). Comparatively, among the subset of patients who had baseline CT and/or MRI scans available (N=267), the majority read patient-level sensitivity and specificity for 18 F-flotufolastat were 23% (22–29% across readers) and 96% (93–97% across readers), respectively. Notably lower sensitivity values were observed for baseline conventional imaging – for CT and/or MRI, the patient-level sensitivity was 3% (CT, 4%; MRI, 0%) and specificity was 95% (CT, 95%; MRI, 93%; N=267). Conclusions: This post-hoc analysis demonstrated the superior sensitivity of 18 F-flotufolastat PET compared with baseline conventional CT or MRI for the detection of pelvic LN metastasis. The very low sensitivity of conventional imaging (3%) highlights that detection of pelvic LN metastasis in the population enrolled in the LIGHTHOUSE study is highly challenging. Clinical trial information: NCT04186819 .
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (6)
Devaki Shilpa Surasi
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Matthias Eiber
Rick Hermsen
CWZ-Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Albert Chau
18Datacision Limited, London, United Kingdom
Shaneil Sonecha
Blue Earth Diagnostics Limited, Oxford, United Kingdom
Brian Francis Chapin
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX