[F]DCFPyL PET/CT Versus [F]fluoromethylcholine PET/CT in Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer (PYTHON): a Prospective, Open Label, Cross-over, Comparative Study

Purpose: Primary objective was to compare the per-patient detection rates (DR) of [F]DCFPyL versus [F]fluoromethylcholine positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), in patients with first prostate cancer (PCa) biochemical recurrence (BCR). Secondary endpoints included safety and impact on patient management (PM).

Methods: This was a prospective, open label, cross-over, comparative study with randomized treatment administration of [F]DCFPyL (investigational medicinal product) or [F]fluoromethylcholine (comparator). Men with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after initial curative therapy were enrolled. [F]DCFPyL and [F]fluoromethylcholine PET/CTs were performed within a maximum time interval of 12 days. DR was defined as the percentage of positive PET/CT scans identified by 3 central imaging readers. PM was assessed by comparing the proposed pre-PET/CT treatment with the local treatment", defined after considering both PET/CTs.

Results: A total of 205 patients with first BCR after radical prostatectomy (73%; median PSA = 0.46 ng/ml [CI 0.16;27.0]) or radiation therapy (27%; median PSA = 4.23 ng/ml [CI 1.4;98.6]) underwent [F]DCFPyL- and/or [F]fluoromethylcholine -PET/CTs, between July and December 2020, at 22 European sites. 201 patients completed the study. The per-patient DR was significantly higher for [F]DCFPyL- compared to [F]fluoromethylcholine -PET/CTs (58% (117/201 patients) vs. 40% (81/201 patients), p < 0.0001). DR increased with higher PSA values for both tracers (PSA ≤ 0.5 ng/ml: 26/74 (35%) vs. 22/74 (30%); PSA 0.5 to ≤ 1.0 ng/ml: 17/31 (55%) vs. 10/31 (32%); PSA 1.01 to < 2.0 ng/ml: 13/19 (68%) vs. 6/19 (32%);PSA > 2.0: 50/57 (88%) vs. 39/57 (68%) for [F]DCFPyL- and [F]fluoromethylcholine -PET/CT, respectively). [F]DCFPyL PET/CT had an impact on PM in 44% (90/204) of patients versus 29% (58/202) for [F]fluoromethylcholine. Overall, no drug-related nor serious adverse events were observed.

Conclusions: The primary endpoint of this study was achieved, confirming a significantly higher detection rate for [F]DCFPyL compared to [F]fluoromethylcholine, in men with first BCR of PCa, across a wide PSA range. [F]DCFPyL was safe and well tolerated.

Citing Articles

cfDNA fragmentation patterns correlate with tumor burden measured via PSMA PET/CT volumetric parameters in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer.

Amseian G, Figueras M, Mases J, Mengual L, Ribal M, Quintero K EJNMMI Res. 2024; 14(1):124.

PMID: 39694939 PMC: 11655959. DOI: 10.1186/s13550-024-01170-x.

Implementing evidence-based strategies for men with biochemically recurrent and advanced prostate cancer: Consensus recommendations from the US Prostate Cancer Conference 2024.

Bryce A, Agarwal N, Beltran H, Hussain M, Sartor O, Shore N Cancer. 2024; 131(1):e35612.

PMID: 39616467 PMC: 11694557. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.35612.

FAP and PSMA Expression by Immunohistochemistry and PET Imaging in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Translational Pilot Study.

Huang R, Zuo C, Mona C, Holzgreve A, Morrissey C, Nelson P J Nucl Med. 2024; 65(12):1952-1958.

PMID: 39477498 PMC: 11619584. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.124.268037.

Effect of F-DCFPyL PET on changes in management of patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wang H, Zhu H, Li G, Dai J, Huang H, Jia Q Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1355236.

PMID: 38725467 PMC: 11079165. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1355236.

Advancements in PSMA ligand radiolabeling for diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Yan Y, Zhuo H, Li T, Zhang J, Tan M, Chen Y Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1373606.

PMID: 38577331 PMC: 10991730. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1373606.

References

Cookson M, Aus G, Burnett A, Canby-Hagino E, DAmico A, Dmochowski R . Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in.... J Urol. 2007; 177(2):540-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.097. View

Ghosh A, Heston W . Tumor target prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and its regulation in prostate cancer. J Cell Biochem. 2004; 91(3):528-39. DOI: 10.1002/jcb.10661. View

Szabo Z, Mena E, Rowe S, Plyku D, Nidal R, Eisenberger M . Initial Evaluation of [(18)F]DCFPyL for Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA)-Targeted PET Imaging of Prostate Cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2015; 17(4):565-74. PMC: 4531836. DOI: 10.1007/s11307-015-0850-8. View

Ma W, Mao J, Yang J, Wang T, Zhao Z . Comparing the diagnostic performance of radiotracers in prostate cancer biochemical recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2022; 32(11):7374-7385. PMC: 9668945. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08802-7. View

Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Dyba T, Randi G, Bettio M . Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries and 25 major cancers in 2018. Eur J Cancer. 2018; 103:356-387. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.07.005. View

Giannarini G, Fossati N, Gandaglia G, Cucchiara V, Ficarra V, Mirone V . Will Image-guided Metastasis-directed Therapy Change the Treatment Paradigm of Oligorecurrent Prostate Cancer?. Eur Urol. 2018; 74(2):131-133. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.021. View

Roach 3rd M, Hanks G, Thames Jr H, Schellhammer P, Shipley W, Sokol G . Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 65(4):965-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029. View

Roehl K, Han M, Ramos C, Antenor J, Catalona W . Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol. 2004; 172(3):910-4. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000134888.22332.bb. View

Tosoian J, Gorin M, Ross A, Pienta K, Tran P, Schaeffer E . Oligometastatic prostate cancer: definitions, clinical outcomes, and treatment considerations. Nat Rev Urol. 2016; 14(1):15-25. PMC: 5808411. DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2016.175. View

10.

Amling C, Blute M, Bergstralh E, Seay T, Slezak J, Zincke H . Long-term hazard of progression after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: continued risk of biochemical failure after 5 years. J Urol. 2000; 164(1):101-5. View

11.

Song H, Harrison C, Duan H, Guja K, Hatami N, Franc B . Prospective Evaluation of F-DCFPyL PET/CT in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer in an Academic Center: A Focus on Disease Localization and Changes in Management. J Nucl Med. 2019; 61(4):546-551. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.231654. View

12.

Hagens M, Oprea-Lager D, Vis A, Wondergem M, Donswijk M, Meijer D . Reproducibility of PSMA PET/CT Imaging for Primary Staging of Treatment-Naïve Prostate Cancer Patients Depends on the Applied Radiotracer: A Retrospective Study. J Nucl Med. 2022; 63(10):1531-1536. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.263139. View

13.

Rowe S, Macura K, Mena E, Blackford A, Nadal R, Antonarakis E . PSMA-Based [(18)F]DCFPyL PET/CT Is Superior to Conventional Imaging for Lesion Detection in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2016; 18(3):411-9. PMC: 5261857. DOI: 10.1007/s11307-016-0957-6. View

14.

Treglia G, Mestre R, Ferrari M, Bosetti D, Pascale M, Oikonomou E . Radiolabelled choline versus PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer restaging: a meta-analysis. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019; 9(2):127-139. PMC: 6526363. View

15.

Giesel F, Will L, Lawal I, Lengana T, Kratochwil C, Vorster M . Intraindividual Comparison of F-PSMA-1007 and F-DCFPyL PET/CT in the Prospective Evaluation of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Prostate Carcinoma: A Pilot Study. J Nucl Med. 2017; 59(7):1076-1080. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.204669. View

16.

Gorin M, Rowe S, Patel H, Vidal I, Mana-Ay M, Javadi M . Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen Targeted F-DCFPyL Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography for the Preoperative Staging of High Risk Prostate Cancer: Results of a Prospective, Phase II, Single Center Study. J Urol. 2017; 199(1):126-132. PMC: 5802365. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.070. View

17.

Habl G, Straube C, Schiller K, Duma M, Oechsner M, Kessel K . Oligometastases from prostate cancer: local treatment with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). BMC Cancer. 2017; 17(1):361. PMC: 5440986. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-017-3341-2. View

18.

Pienta K, Gorin M, Rowe S, Carroll P, Pouliot F, Probst S . A Phase 2/3 Prospective Multicenter Study of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen PET/CT with F-DCFPyL in Prostate Cancer Patients (OSPREY). J Urol. 2021; 206(1):52-61. PMC: 8556578. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001698. View

19.

DAmico A, Whittington R, Malkowicz S, Cote K, Loffredo M, Schultz D . Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. Cancer. 2002; 95(2):281-6. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.10657. View

20.

Zacho H, Nielsen J, Haberkorn U, Stenholt L, Petersen L . Ga-PSMA PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer: a systematic review of the published literature. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2017; . DOI: 10.1111/cpf.12480. View