» Articles » PMID: 33846845

Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer with F-DCFPyL PET/multiparametric MR

Overview
Date 2021 Apr 13
PMID 33846845
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To assess whether F-DCFPyL PET/multiparametric (mp)MR contributes to the diagnosis of clinically significant (cs) prostate cancer (PCa) compared to mpMR in patients with suspicion of PCa, or patients being considered for focal ablative therapies (FT).

Patients And Methods: This ethics review board-approved, prospective study included 55 men with suspicion of PCa and negative systematic biopsies or clinically discordant low-risk PCa (n = 21) or those being considered for FT (n = 34) who received F-DCFPyL PET/mpMR. Each modality, PET, mpMR, and PET/MR (using the PROMISE classification), was assessed independently. All suspicious lesions underwent PET/MR-ultrasound fusion biopsies.

Results: There were 45/55 patients (81.8%) that had histologically proven PCa and 41/55 (74.5%) were diagnosed with csPCa. Overall, 61/114 lesions (53.5%) identified on any modality were malignant; 49/61 lesions (80.3%) were csPCa. On lesion-level analysis, for detection of csPCa, the sensitivity of PET was higher than that of mpMR and PET/MR (86% vs 67% and 69% [p = 0.027 and 0.041, respectively]), but at a lower specificity (32% vs 85% and 86%, respectively [p < 0.001]). The performance of MR and PET/MR was comparable. For identification of csPCa in PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions, the AUC (95% CI) for PET, mpMR, and PET/MR was 0.75 (0.65-0.86), 0.69 (0.56-0.82), and 0.78 (0.67-0.89), respectively. The AUC for PET/MR was significantly larger than that of mpMR (p = 0.04).

Conclusion: PSMA PET detects more csPCa than mpMR, but at low specificity. The performance PET/MR is better than mpMR for detection of csPCa in PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions.

Clinical Registration: NCT03149861.

Citing Articles

Focal therapy for prostate cancer.

Basseri S, Perlis N, Ghai S Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024; 50(2):757-769.

PMID: 39162800 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04482-7.


Diagnostic performance of F‑DCFPyL PET vs. Ga‑PSMA PET/CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer: A systemic review and meta‑analysis.

Jiang Z, Guo J, Hu L, Yang S, Meng B, Tang Q Oncol Lett. 2024; 27(4):188.

PMID: 38486944 PMC: 10938285. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2024.14321.


Head-to-head comparison of prostate-specific membrane antigen PET and multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of pretreatment patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.

Ma J, Yang Q, Ye X, Xu W, Chang Y, Chen R Eur Radiol. 2023; 34(6):4017-4037.

PMID: 37981590 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10436-2.


A Systematic Review of the Variability in Performing and Reporting Intraprostatic Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Primary Staging Studies.

Ptasznik G, Moon D, Buteau J, Kelly B, Ong S, Murphy D Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023; 50:91-105.

PMID: 37101769 PMC: 10123424. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.01.010.


The diagnostic performance of F-DCFPyL PET in patients with suspected prostate cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

Pang W, Cheng S, Du Z, Du S Front Oncol. 2023; 13:1145759.

PMID: 36959787 PMC: 10030046. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1145759.


References
1.
Sosnowski R, Kamecki H, Daneshmand S, Rudzinski J, Bjurlin M, Giganti F . Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer - in pursuit of a standardized protocol. Cent European J Urol. 2020; 73(2):123-126. PMC: 7407781. DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2020.0167. View