PET imaging for metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) for patients with PSA response after systemic therapy: A multicentric ambispective analysis.

M Mathilde Beaufils (Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France) L Lucie Meynard (Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France) A Alice Bernard-Tessier (Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France) I Isabelle Brenot-Rossi (Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France) M Mathilde Guerin (Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France) A Alban Tauty (Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France) L Lorene Seguin (Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France) N Naji Salem (Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France) G Geraldine Pignot (Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Department of Surgical Oncology, Marseille, France) C Cécile Vicier (Institut Paoli Calmettes, Department of Medical Oncology, Aix-Marseille Université, CRCM, Marseille, France) J Jochen Walz (Institut Paoli‐Calmettes Cancer Center Marseille France) G Guilhem Roubaud (Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France) B Boughalem Elouen (Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Angers, France) G Gwenaelle Gravis (Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Aix-Marseille Univ, INSERM, CNRS, CRCM, Immunity and Cancer Team, Marseille, France)

Abstract

37 Background: PET imaging is not recommended for surveillance of mCSPC but it is used by some physicians. Little is known about surveillance for metastatic prostate cancer using PET imaging. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between PSA response and PET imaging for mCSPC. Methods: An ambispective, multicentric, observational study, recorded PET imaging for patient’s treated with a minimum of 6 months of systemic therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) +/- androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) +/- docetaxel for mCSPC with PSA < 0.2 ng/ml, normal CT scan and non progressive disease in bone scan. All of them had baseline evaluation with standard imaging. Results: Between August 2022 and September 2024, 57 patients (pts) with mCSPC were included, in 4 centres in France. Baseline characteristics at the time of metastatic disease were: median age of 65 years (range: 45-84), ISUP ≥4 for 63%, median PSA 22.1 ng/ml (1.6-5000ng/ml) with T≥3 in 53%. The majority of pts had low volume disease 56%, with synchronous metastatic disease for 67% and ≥ 4 bone metastases in 44%. Only 5 pts had visceral metastases. Pts were treated, by ADT + ARPI in 81%, ADT + docetaxel in 7% and triplet in 12% of cases. Patients had prostate radiotherapy (RxT) in 39% and RxT to metastatic bone lesion in 19%. The 8 months PSA was <0.2 ng/ml in 89% of pts. PET imaging was choline in 86%, PSMA in 14%. Median time between treatment initiation and PET imaging was 17 months and delay between PSA < 0.2 and PET imaging was 12 months (range: 0-32). A complete response was observed in 46 patients (81%). Non-complete responders (CR) were more frequently high volume disease (66%) and synchronous metastasis (100%), treated by ADT + ARPI alone (77%) or ADT + docetaxel (11%). Non CR were: 1 neuroendocrine progression, 1 lung cancer and 9 partial responders (2/9 progressed later). Conclusions: In patients with mCSPC, treated by ADT with ARPI and or docetaxel and with PSA < 0.2 ng/ml, a complete response is observed in 81 % when using PET imaging. The information given by PET imaging could be and additional surrogate measure to PSA response for intensification or de intensification the systemic and local treatment for mCSPC.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 5_suppl
Published February 10, 2025
Pages 37-37
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (14)

M

Mathilde Beaufils

Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France

L

Lucie Meynard

Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France

A

Alice Bernard-Tessier

Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France

I

Isabelle Brenot-Rossi

Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France

M

Mathilde Guerin

Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France

A

Alban Tauty

Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France

L

Lorene Seguin

Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France

N

Naji Salem

Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France

G

Geraldine Pignot

Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Department of Surgical Oncology, Marseille, France

C

Cécile Vicier

Institut Paoli Calmettes, Department of Medical Oncology, Aix-Marseille Université, CRCM, Marseille, France

J

Jochen Walz

Institut Paoli‐Calmettes Cancer Center Marseille France

G

Guilhem Roubaud

Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France

B

Boughalem Elouen

Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Angers, France

G

Gwenaelle Gravis

Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Aix-Marseille Univ, INSERM, CNRS, CRCM, Immunity and Cancer Team, Marseille, France