Case report: PSMA PET/CT addresses the correct diagnosis in a patient with metastatic prostate cancer despite negative core biopsies and mpMRI. A diagnostic challenge

Vetrone, Luigia; Cuzzani, Giulia; Mei, Riccardo; Zanoni, Lucia; Bertaccini, Alessandro; Bianchi, Lorenzo; Castellucci, Paolo; Gaudiano, Caterina; Cappelli, Alberta; Giunchi, Francesca; Fanti, Stefano

doi:10.3389/fonc.2023.1101221

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…PSMA-PET is considered the imaging method of choice to identify PCa lesions in patients with recurrent PCa after primary treatments [ 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. Thus, considering patients who show PSA recurrence after salvage therapies, PSMA-PET may identify oligo-recurrent men eligible for MDT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PSMA-PET Guided Treatment in Prostate Cancer Patients with Oligorecurrent Progression after Previous Salvage Treatment

Bianchi

Ceci

Balestrazzi

et al. 2023

Cancers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen-Positron Emission Tomography (PSMA-PET) is used to select recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) patients for metastases-directed therapy (MDT). We aimed to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of second-line PSMA-guided MDT in oligo-recurrent PCa patients. Methods: we performed a retrospective analysis of 113 recurrent PCa after previous radical prostatectomy and salvage therapies with oligorecurrent disease at PSMA-PET (≤3 lesions in N1/M1a-b) in three high-volume European centres. Patients underwent second-line salvage treatments: MDT targeted to PSMA (including surgery and/or radiotherapy), and the conventional approach (observation or Androgen Deprivation Therapy [ADT]). Patients were stratified according to treatments (MDT vs. conventional approach). Patients who underwent MDT were stratified according to stage in PSMA-PET (N1 vs. M1a-b). The primary outcome of the study was Progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were Metastases-free survival (MFS) and Castration Resistant PCa free survival (CRPC-FS). Kaplan-Meier analyses assessed PFS, MFS and CRPC-FS. Multivariable Cox regression models identified predictors of progression and metastatic disease. Results: Overall, 91 (80%) and 22 (20%) patients were treated with MDT and the conventional approach, respectively. The median follow-up after PSMA-PET was 31 months. Patients who underwent MDT had a similar PFS compared to the conventional approach (p = 0.3). Individuals referred to MDT had significantly higher MFS and CRPC-FS compared to those who were treated with the conventional approach (73.5% and 94.7% vs. 30.5% and 79.5%; all p ≤ 0.001). In patients undergoing MDT, no significant differences were found for PFS and MFS according to N1 vs. M1a-b disease, while CRPC-FS estimates were significantly higher in patients with N1 vs. M1a-b (100% vs. 86.1%; p = 0.02). At multivariable analyses, age (HR = 0.96) and ADT during second line salvage treatment (HR = 0.5) were independent predictors of PFS; MDT (HR 0.27) was the only independent predictor of MFS (all p ≤ 0.04) Conclusion: Patients who underwent second-line PSMA-guided MDT experienced higher MFS and CRPC-FS compared to men who received conventional management.

show abstract