The Impact of PSMA PET-Based Eligibility Criteria Used in the Prospective Phase II TheraP Trial in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Targeted Radioligand Therapy

Standard

The Impact of PSMA PET-Based Eligibility Criteria Used in the Prospective Phase II TheraP Trial in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Targeted Radioligand Therapy. / Karimzadeh, Amir; Heck, Matthias; Tauber, Robert; Solaris, Esteban; Nekolla, Stephan; Knorr, Karina; Haller, Bernhard; D'Alessandria, Calogero; Weber, Wolfgang A; Eiber, Matthias; Rauscher, Isabel.

In: J NUCL MED, Vol. 64, No. 8, 08.2023, p. 1252-1258.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journalSCORING: Journal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{825ba8c331d04ccea8d3c93a81f35a36,
title = "The Impact of PSMA PET-Based Eligibility Criteria Used in the Prospective Phase II TheraP Trial in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Targeted Radioligand Therapy",
abstract = "Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand therapy (RLT) has shown encouraging results for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the prospective, multicenter, randomized phase II TheraP study. The inclusion criteria for that study comprised a pretherapeutic 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET scan showing sufficient tumor uptake using a predefined threshold and the absence of 18F-FDG-positive, PSMA ligand-negative tumor lesions. However, the prognostic value of these PET-based inclusion criteria remains unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the outcome of mCRPC patients treated with PSMA RLT using TheraP as well as other TheraP-based PET inclusion criteria. Methods: First, patients were dichotomized into 2 groups whose PSMA PET scans did (TheraP contrast-enhanced PSMA [cePSMA] PET-positive) or did not (TheraP cePSMA PET-negative) fulfill the inclusion criteria of TheraP. Notably, unlike in TheraP, 18F-FDG PET was not performed on our patients. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (PSA decline ≥ 50% from baseline), PSA progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were compared. Additionally, patients were further dichotomized according to predefined SUVmax thresholds different from those used in TheraP to analyze their potential impact on outcome as well. Results: In total, 107 mCRPC patients were included in this analysis (TheraP cePSMA PET-positive, n = 77; TheraP cePSMA PET-negative, n = 30). PSA response rates were higher in TheraP cePSMA PET-positive patients than in TheraP cePSMA PET-negative patients (54.5% vs. 20%, respectively; P = 0.0012). The median PSA progression-free survival (P = 0.007) and OS (P = 0.0007) of patients were significantly longer in the TheraP cePSMA PET-positive group than in the TheraP cePSMA PET-negative group. Moreover, being in the TheraP cePSMA PET-positive group was identified as a significant prognosticator of longer OS (P = 0.003). The application of different SUVmax thresholds for a single hottest lesion demonstrated no influence on outcome in patients eligible for PSMA RLT. Conclusion: Patient selection for PSMA RLT according to the inclusion criteria of TheraP led to a better treatment response and outcome in our preselected patient cohort. However, a relevant number of patients not fulfilling these criteria also showed substantial rates of response.",
keywords = "Male, Humans, Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/diagnostic imaging, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Treatment Outcome, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Prospective Studies, Prostate/pathology, Dipeptides/therapeutic use, Heterocyclic Compounds, 1-Ring/therapeutic use, Lutetium/therapeutic use, Retrospective Studies",
author = "Amir Karimzadeh and Matthias Heck and Robert Tauber and Esteban Solaris and Stephan Nekolla and Karina Knorr and Bernhard Haller and Calogero D'Alessandria and Weber, {Wolfgang A} and Matthias Eiber and Isabel Rauscher",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2023 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.",
year = "2023",
month = aug,
doi = "10.2967/jnumed.122.265346",
language = "English",
volume = "64",
pages = "1252--1258",
journal = "J NUCL MED",
issn = "0161-5505",
publisher = "Society of Nuclear Medicine Inc.",
number = "8",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Impact of PSMA PET-Based Eligibility Criteria Used in the Prospective Phase II TheraP Trial in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Targeted Radioligand Therapy

AU - Karimzadeh, Amir

AU - Heck, Matthias

AU - Tauber, Robert

AU - Solaris, Esteban

AU - Nekolla, Stephan

AU - Knorr, Karina

AU - Haller, Bernhard

AU - D'Alessandria, Calogero

AU - Weber, Wolfgang A

AU - Eiber, Matthias

AU - Rauscher, Isabel

N1 - © 2023 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

PY - 2023/8

Y1 - 2023/8

N2 - Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand therapy (RLT) has shown encouraging results for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the prospective, multicenter, randomized phase II TheraP study. The inclusion criteria for that study comprised a pretherapeutic 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET scan showing sufficient tumor uptake using a predefined threshold and the absence of 18F-FDG-positive, PSMA ligand-negative tumor lesions. However, the prognostic value of these PET-based inclusion criteria remains unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the outcome of mCRPC patients treated with PSMA RLT using TheraP as well as other TheraP-based PET inclusion criteria. Methods: First, patients were dichotomized into 2 groups whose PSMA PET scans did (TheraP contrast-enhanced PSMA [cePSMA] PET-positive) or did not (TheraP cePSMA PET-negative) fulfill the inclusion criteria of TheraP. Notably, unlike in TheraP, 18F-FDG PET was not performed on our patients. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (PSA decline ≥ 50% from baseline), PSA progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were compared. Additionally, patients were further dichotomized according to predefined SUVmax thresholds different from those used in TheraP to analyze their potential impact on outcome as well. Results: In total, 107 mCRPC patients were included in this analysis (TheraP cePSMA PET-positive, n = 77; TheraP cePSMA PET-negative, n = 30). PSA response rates were higher in TheraP cePSMA PET-positive patients than in TheraP cePSMA PET-negative patients (54.5% vs. 20%, respectively; P = 0.0012). The median PSA progression-free survival (P = 0.007) and OS (P = 0.0007) of patients were significantly longer in the TheraP cePSMA PET-positive group than in the TheraP cePSMA PET-negative group. Moreover, being in the TheraP cePSMA PET-positive group was identified as a significant prognosticator of longer OS (P = 0.003). The application of different SUVmax thresholds for a single hottest lesion demonstrated no influence on outcome in patients eligible for PSMA RLT. Conclusion: Patient selection for PSMA RLT according to the inclusion criteria of TheraP led to a better treatment response and outcome in our preselected patient cohort. However, a relevant number of patients not fulfilling these criteria also showed substantial rates of response.

AB - Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand therapy (RLT) has shown encouraging results for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the prospective, multicenter, randomized phase II TheraP study. The inclusion criteria for that study comprised a pretherapeutic 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET scan showing sufficient tumor uptake using a predefined threshold and the absence of 18F-FDG-positive, PSMA ligand-negative tumor lesions. However, the prognostic value of these PET-based inclusion criteria remains unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the outcome of mCRPC patients treated with PSMA RLT using TheraP as well as other TheraP-based PET inclusion criteria. Methods: First, patients were dichotomized into 2 groups whose PSMA PET scans did (TheraP contrast-enhanced PSMA [cePSMA] PET-positive) or did not (TheraP cePSMA PET-negative) fulfill the inclusion criteria of TheraP. Notably, unlike in TheraP, 18F-FDG PET was not performed on our patients. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (PSA decline ≥ 50% from baseline), PSA progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were compared. Additionally, patients were further dichotomized according to predefined SUVmax thresholds different from those used in TheraP to analyze their potential impact on outcome as well. Results: In total, 107 mCRPC patients were included in this analysis (TheraP cePSMA PET-positive, n = 77; TheraP cePSMA PET-negative, n = 30). PSA response rates were higher in TheraP cePSMA PET-positive patients than in TheraP cePSMA PET-negative patients (54.5% vs. 20%, respectively; P = 0.0012). The median PSA progression-free survival (P = 0.007) and OS (P = 0.0007) of patients were significantly longer in the TheraP cePSMA PET-positive group than in the TheraP cePSMA PET-negative group. Moreover, being in the TheraP cePSMA PET-positive group was identified as a significant prognosticator of longer OS (P = 0.003). The application of different SUVmax thresholds for a single hottest lesion demonstrated no influence on outcome in patients eligible for PSMA RLT. Conclusion: Patient selection for PSMA RLT according to the inclusion criteria of TheraP led to a better treatment response and outcome in our preselected patient cohort. However, a relevant number of patients not fulfilling these criteria also showed substantial rates of response.

KW - Male

KW - Humans

KW - Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/diagnostic imaging

KW - Prostate-Specific Antigen

KW - Treatment Outcome

KW - Fluorodeoxyglucose F18

KW - Prospective Studies

KW - Prostate/pathology

KW - Dipeptides/therapeutic use

KW - Heterocyclic Compounds, 1-Ring/therapeutic use

KW - Lutetium/therapeutic use

KW - Retrospective Studies

U2 - 10.2967/jnumed.122.265346

DO - 10.2967/jnumed.122.265346

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 37290796

VL - 64

SP - 1252

EP - 1258

JO - J NUCL MED

JF - J NUCL MED

SN - 0161-5505

IS - 8

ER -