External validation of new prostate cancer risk groups by PSMA-PET (PPP3).

W Wolfgang Peter Fendler M Madeleine Josefine Karpinski (Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), NCT, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany) C Caner Civan (University Hospital Essen, Germany, Essen, Germany) S Sebastian Hoberück (Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany) A Alexis Vrachimis (Department of Nuclear Medicine, German Oncology Center, University Hospital of the European University, Limassol, Cyprus) W Weijing Tao M Michael Sathekge (Nuclear Medicine Research Infrastructure, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa) F Francesco Mattana (Division of Nuclear Medicine and Theranostics, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy) D Dilsat Firat Arslan (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey) A Ali Kibar (Faculty of Medicine, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Trakya University, Sukrupasa, Edirne, Turkey) W Weijun Wei K Ken Herrmann B Boris A. Hadaschik (University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany) K Kambiz Rahbar T Tobias Maurer

Abstract

5112 Background: Previously, we proposed novel risk group definitions for prostate cancer patients based on Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) targeted positron emission tomography (PET). PSMA-PET pan-stage nomograms (PPP3) were developed using the international, multicentre PROMISE registry (NCT06320223) to prognosticate overall survival (OS). Here, we present an external validation of PPP3. Methods: Eligible patients enrolled into our PROMISE registry database after the PPP3 data cap were included into this external validation study. Included patients had histologically proven prostate cancer and underwent PSMA-PET at hospitals in Turkey, Cyprus, Italy, China, South Africa or Germany between 2015 and 2022. PSMA-PET was standardized by PROMISE version 2 (V2); total lesion count, total tumor volume, PSMA expression score and OS follow-up were obtained as per local site practice. PPP3 nomograms were applied to calculate risk groups and Harrell´s C-indices for the external validation cohort. Calibration curves were measured for 5-year OS. Head-to-head comparison between the visual PPP3 nomogram and the simplified risk stratification table was examined by area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC-AUC). Results: 1855 male patients across all disease stages with 179 (9.6%) reported deaths and median OS follow-up of 4.8 years (IQR 3.7-6.1) were analysed. In the external validation cohort C-indices (95% CI) were 0.71 (0.67-0.76) for the visual nomogram and 0.73 (0.69-0.77) for the quantitative nomogram, respectively. By simplified risk stratification table, 77 of 1855 patients (4.2%) were underestimated and 16 (0.9%) were overestimated, when compared with visual nomograms. Prognostic accuracy was comparable using both methods (AUC Nomogram: 0.64 vs. AUC Table: 0.63, p = 0.02). Conclusions: PPP3 nomograms were validated in an external multi-site patient cohort. Prognostication was accurate (C-indices > 0.70) for both PPP3 nomograms. Clinical trial information: NCT06320223 .

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2026
Pages 5112-5112
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (15)

W

Wolfgang Peter Fendler

M

Madeleine Josefine Karpinski

Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), NCT, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

C

Caner Civan

University Hospital Essen, Germany, Essen, Germany

S

Sebastian Hoberück

Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany

A

Alexis Vrachimis

Department of Nuclear Medicine, German Oncology Center, University Hospital of the European University, Limassol, Cyprus

W

Weijing Tao

M

Michael Sathekge

Nuclear Medicine Research Infrastructure, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa

F

Francesco Mattana

Division of Nuclear Medicine and Theranostics, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy

D

Dilsat Firat Arslan

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey

A

Ali Kibar

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Trakya University, Sukrupasa, Edirne, Turkey

W

Weijun Wei

K

Ken Herrmann

B

Boris A. Hadaschik

University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

K

Kambiz Rahbar

T

Tobias Maurer