Prognostic value of quantitative PSMA-PET parameters during chemotherapy in prostate cancer.

S Stephan Skawran (University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland) A Andrei Gafita (Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD) T Theo Lorenzini (2Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Member of the German Center for Lung Research, Munich, Germany) S Sebastian Hoberück (Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany) F Francesco Mattana (Division of Nuclear Medicine and Theranostics, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy) A Andrea Di Giorgio (Nuclear Medicine, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy) M Matthias Miederer (Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany) C Channing Judith Paller (Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD) L Loic Djaileb L 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) A Andrea Farolfi (Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy) F Francesco Ceci (IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, University of Milan, Milan, Italy) M Matthias Eiber A Andrew F Voter (Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD)

Abstract

33 Background: PSMA-PET/CT is increasingly being used to monitor chemotherapy in prostate cancer and shows promise for predicting outcomes and improving response evaluation. This retrospective study aimed to determine the prognostic value of quantitative tumor burden parameters derived from PSMA-PET/CT for overall survival (OS) during taxane-based chemotherapy. Methods: Databases from 6 institutions were screened for patients who underwent[ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA11-PET and serum PSA measurements at baseline and within three months after last taxane based chemotherapy dose. Tumor segmentation was performed using DeepPSMA software and PSMA-PET whole-body quantitative parameters were obtained: PSMA-positive tumor volume (PSMA-VOL) and maximum/average standardized uptake value (SUV max , SUV mean ). Univariate Cox-regression analyses by hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to evaluate association of whole-body quantitative PSMA parameters and PSA levels with OS. Harrell’s concordance index (C-index) was used to determine prognostic accuracy. Optimal cut points were determined by maximizing the log-rank statistic. Results: A total of 128 patients were included, of whom 62/128 (48%) had castration-sensitive prostate cancer and 66/128 (52%) castration-resistant prostate cancer. At baseline, PSMA-VOL numerically reached the highest prognostic value for OS (C-index: 0.88) followed by PSA (C-index: 0.80, p = 0.85), while the percentage change in PSA levels had the highest prognostic value during treatment (C-index: 0.94) significantly higher than percentage change in PSMA-VOL (C-index: 0.85, p = 0.02), (complete data shown in Table 1). Conclusions: Baseline and post-therapeutic PSMA-PET/CT quantitative parameters are prognostic for OS after taxane-based chemotherapy in prostate cancer. Baseline PSMA-VOL had the highest prognostic value for OS, while changes in PSA levels outperformed changes in quantitative PSMA-PET parameters during treatment. Parameter Cut point HR (95% CI) P-value C-index (95% CI) PSMA vol , baseline > 28 ml 5.59 (2.77 – 11.27) < 0.001 0.88 (0.81 – 0.96) SUV mean , baseline < 13.2 2.00 (0.96 – 4.15) 0.06 0.29 (0.13 – 0.45) SUV max , baseline > 71 2.18 (1.23 – 3.86) 0.007 0.69 (0.57 – 0.82) PSA, baseline > 3.9 ng/ml 3.53 (1.75 – 7.13) < 0.001 0.80 (0.69 – 0.92) PSMA vol , relative change > -21 % 4.48 (2.80 – 7.17) < 0.001 0.85 (0.78 – 0.91) SUV max , relative change > -70 % 2.42 (1.50 – 3.82) < 0.001 0.76 (0.67 – 0.86) SUV mean , relative change > -44 % 5.98 (2.57 – 13.88) < 0.001 0.85 (0.73 – 0.98) PSA, relative change > -97 % 7.03 (3.20 – 15.43) < 0.001 0.94 (0.88 – 0.99)

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 5_suppl
Published February 10, 2025
Pages 33-33
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (14)

S

Stephan Skawran

University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

A

Andrei Gafita

Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD

T

Theo Lorenzini

2Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Member of the German Center for Lung Research, Munich, Germany

S

Sebastian Hoberück

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

F

Francesco Mattana

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

A

Andrea Di Giorgio

Nuclear Medicine, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

M

Matthias Miederer

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

C

Channing Judith Paller

Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD

L

Loic Djaileb

L

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

A

Andrea Farolfi

Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

F

Francesco Ceci

IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

M

Matthias Eiber

A

Andrew F Voter

Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD