Prognostic Value of [F]FDG PET/CT in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer at Initial Diagnosis: a Retrospective Cohort Study

Overview

Journal Ann Med

Publisher Informa Healthcare

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Oct 11

PMID 39392016

Authors

Ang Li

Kai Shen

Yiyi Ji

Weiwei Zhang

Bo Liu

Ruopeng Su

Xiang Zhou

Liang Dong

Yinjie Zhu

Baijun Dong

Jiahua Pan

Qi Wang

Wei Xue

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of [F]FDG parameters in patients with visceral and bone metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

Patients And Methods: This analysis included the mHSPC patients who underwent [F]FDG PET/CT at the initial diagnosis. Baseline characteristics were analyzed, and the uptake of [F]FDG was quantified using SUV. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard regression analysis were employed to evaluate the correlation between SUV and patient survival.

Results: Among the 267 patients enrolled, 90 (33.7%) presented with visceral metastases and 177 (66.3%) had bone metastases. The median follow-up for the visceral metastasis group was 35.5 months (IQR 26-53.8 months). The median overall survival for patients with lung, liver, or both metastases were 30, 21 and 17 months, respectively. Patients exhibiting higher [F]FDG uptake in metastatic lesions experienced shorter overall survival (OS) in comparison to those with lower [F]FDG uptake, both in the visceral metastases group (17 vs. 31 months, = 0.002) and the bone metastases group (27.5 vs. 34.5 months, < 0.001). Cox regression analysis further revealed that increased [F]FDG uptake in metastatic lesions emerged as a significant risk factor in both OS and progression-free survival (PFS). In contrast, the variability in [F]FDG uptake in primary lesions did not provide a reliable indicator for predicting prognosis.

Conclusions: In mHSPC patients, higher [F]FDG uptake in metastatic lesions indicates shorter survival and increased risk of disease progression. The [F]FDG SUV in primary tumors did not show significant prognostic value. Our study underscores the unique prognostic potential of [F]FDG PET/CT in mHSPC patients, highlighting its importance in the management of both bone and visceral metastases.

References

Oyama N, Akino H, Suzuki Y, Kanamaru H, Ishida H, Tanase K . FDG PET for evaluating the change of glucose metabolism in prostate cancer after androgen ablation. Nucl Med Commun. 2001; 22(9):963-9. DOI: 10.1097/00006231-200109000-00004. View

Herlemann A, Washington 3rd S, Cooperberg M . Health Care Delivery for Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer Across the Globe. Eur Urol Focus. 2018; 5(2):155-158. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.12.003. View

Schaeffer E, Srinivas S, Adra N, An Y, Barocas D, Bitting R . NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2023. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022; 20(12):1288-1298. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2022.0063. View

Salminen E, Hogg A, Binns D, Frydenberg M, Hicks R . Investigations with FDG-PET scanning in prostate cancer show limited value for clinical practice. Acta Oncol. 2002; 41(5):425-9. DOI: 10.1080/028418602320405005. View

Das J, Vargas H, Ghafoor S, Goh A, Ulaner G . Clinical Utility of F-FDG PET/CT for Staging and Treatment Planning in Urachal Adenocarcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2020; 62(5):643-647. PMC: 8844264. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.251561. View

Kelly S, Anderson W, Rosenberg P, Cook M . Past, Current, and Future Incidence Rates and Burden of Metastatic Prostate Cancer in the United States. Eur Urol Focus. 2017; 4(1):121-127. PMC: 6217835. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.10.014. View

Horn S, Stoltzfus K, Lehrer E, Dawson L, Tchelebi L, Gusani N . Epidemiology of liver metastases. Cancer Epidemiol. 2020; 67:101760. DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2020.101760. View

Jadvar H . PET of Glucose Metabolism and Cellular Proliferation in Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016; 57(Suppl 3):25S-29S. PMC: 5093915. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.170704. View

van den Bergh G, Kuppen M, Westgeest H, Mehra N, Gerritsen W, Aben K . Incidence and survival of castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with visceral metastases: results from the Dutch CAPRI-registry. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022; 26(1):162-169. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-022-00605-7. View

10.

Leyh-Bannurah S, Karakiewicz P, Pompe R, Preisser F, Zaffuto E, Delloglio P . Inverse stage migration patterns in North American patients undergoing local prostate cancer treatment: a contemporary population-based update in light of the 2012 USPSTF recommendations. World J Urol. 2018; 37(3):469-479. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2396-2. View

11.

Whitney C, Howard L, Posadas E, Amling C, Aronson W, Cooperberg M . In Men with Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer, Visceral Metastases Predict Shorter Overall Survival: What Predicts Visceral Metastases? Results from the SEARCH Database. Eur Urol Focus. 2017; 3(4-5):480-486. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.08.007. View

12.

Dong F, Shen Y, Gao F, Xu T, Wang X, Zhang X . Prognostic value of site-specific metastases and therapeutic roles of surgery for patients with metastatic bladder cancer: a population-based study. Cancer Manag Res. 2017; 9:611-626. PMC: 5694197. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S148856. View

13.

Eisenhauer E, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz L, Sargent D, Ford R . New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2008; 45(2):228-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026. View

14.

Oweira H, Petrausch U, Helbling D, Schmidt J, Mannhart M, Mehrabi A . Prognostic value of site-specific metastases in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2017; 23(10):1872-1880. PMC: 5352929. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i10.1872. View

15.

Shen K, Liu B, Zhou X, Ji Y, Chen L, Wang Q . The Evolving Role of F-FDG PET/CT in Diagnosis and Prognosis Prediction in Progressive Prostate Cancer. Front Oncol. 2021; 11:683793. PMC: 8358601. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.683793. View

16.

Awiwi M, Gjoni M, Vikram R, Altinmakas E, Dogan H, Bathala T . MRI and PSMA PET/CT of Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer. Radiographics. 2023; 43(12):e230112. DOI: 10.1148/rg.230112. View

17.

Flaig T, Potluri R, Ng Y, Todd M, Mehra M, Higano C . Disease and Treatment Characteristics of Men Diagnosed With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in Real Life: Analysis From a Commercial Claims Database. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016; 15(2):273-279.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2016.10.002. View

18.

Gandaglia G, Karakiewicz P, Briganti A, Passoni N, Schiffmann J, Trudeau V . Impact of the Site of Metastases on Survival in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2014; 68(2):325-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.020. View

19.

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel R, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A . Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71(3):209-249. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660. View

20.

Siegel R, Miller K, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020; 70(1):7-30. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21590. View