Impact of PSMA-PET and conventional imaging on contemporary management in patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

A Arielle Ilano (Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California) L Lufan Wang (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) J Janet E Cowan (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) S Samuel L Washington (Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) H Hao Nguyen (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) M Matthew R. Cooperberg (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) T Thomas A. Hope (Irbaz Bin Riaz, MD, PhD; R. Bryan Rumble, MSc; Thomas A. Hope, MD; Giuseppe Procopio, MD; and Neha Vapiwala, MD; Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy; and University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA) P Peter Carroll (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) C Carissa E Chu (University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA)

Abstract

43 Background: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET imaging is recommended for patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). This study describes the early clinical impact of PSMA-PET compared to conventional imaging (CT, MRI, or bone scintigraphy) in a contemporaneous period. Methods: This retrospective study includes patients with BCR after RP (defined as PSA≥0.2 after undetectable PSA post-operatively) who underwent PSMA-PET or conventional imaging (CI) between 2010-2023. The primary outcome was positive detection rate. The secondary outcomes were rates of salvage treatment (XRT±ADT) and second BCR. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to predict risk of salvage treatment and second BCR. Results: 217 post-RP patients were included. Of the 146 patients who underwent PSMA-PET and the 71 who underwent CI, 77 (52.7%) and 7 (9.9%) patients had positive imaging findings at a median PSA value of 0.23 (IQR 0.21-0.33) and 0.25 (IQR 0.25-0.44), respectively (p=0.36). 48 patients received both imaging modalities; 4 had positive results in both PSMA-PET and CI, while 26 were positive for PSMA-PET only, and 2 were positive on CI only. Patients underwent salvage therapy at lower median PSA values in the PSMA-PET group (0.40 vs 0.51, p<0.01). On unadjusted survival analysis, there were no differences in salvage therapy rates or second BCR rates between PSMA-PET or CI groups. On multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling, year of PSA recurrence (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.95), BMI (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.02-2.07), ≥GG3 (HR 1.77 95% CI 1.3-2.4), and undetectable PSA≥6 months after RP (HR 0.50 95% CI 0.34-0.72) were associated with salvage treatment, but imaging modality was not. High genomic risk scores (Decipher>0.60) may be associated with second BCR (HR 2.03 95% CI 0.99-4.18, p=0.05) while other variables were not. Conclusions: PSMA-PET usage increased over the period of this study with higher sensitivity at lower median PSA at BCR. Imaging modality did not predict rates of salvage therapy or second BCR, while other clinical risk factors such as adverse pathology and high genomic risk score did. Analysis with a historical cohort is pending.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 5_suppl
Published February 10, 2025
Pages 43-43
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (9)

A

Arielle Ilano

Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California

L

Lufan Wang

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

J

Janet E Cowan

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

S

Samuel L Washington

Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

H

Hao Nguyen

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

M

Matthew R. Cooperberg

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

T

Thomas A. Hope

Irbaz Bin Riaz, MD, PhD; R. Bryan Rumble, MSc; Thomas A. Hope, MD; Giuseppe Procopio, MD; and Neha Vapiwala, MD; Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy; and University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA

P

Peter Carroll

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

C

Carissa E Chu

University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA