Diagnostic Performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography to Monitor Treatment Response in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: The Concordance Between Biochemical Response and Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Results.

BACKGROUND: Treatment response is traditionally monitored using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and conventional imaging in patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic performance of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) when monitoring mPCa patients receiving systemic treatment and also to investigate the concordance between PSMA PET response according to the PSMA PET progression (PPP) criteria and biochemical response. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 96 patients with 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT-detected mPCa at baseline PSMA PET/CT (bPSMA) who underwent at least one follow-up scan after receiving systemic treatment were included in the study. PSA levels at bPSMA and follow-up PSMA PET (fPSMA) scans were recorded. The PPP criteria were used to define PSMA progression. Biochemical progression was defined as ≥25% increase in PSA. PSMA PET and PSA responses were dichotomized into progressive disease (PD) versus non-PD, and the concordance between PSA and PSMA responses was evaluated. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The concordance between PSA and PSMA PET responses was presented using frequencies, percentages, and Cohen's kappa test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 345 serial PSMA PET/CT (96 bPSMA and 249 fPSMA) scans were evaluated. The positivity rates of PSMA PET scans for PSA levels of <0.01, 0.01-0.2, 0.2-4, and >4 ng/ml were 55.6%, 75.0%, 100%, and 98.8%, respectively. PSA and PSMA responses showed moderate-to-high concordance (Cohen's κ = 0.623, p < 0.001). PSA-PSMA discordance was detected in 39 scans (17%). The most common cause of discordance was the discordant results between different metastatic lesions (16/28, 57.1%) in patients with PPP without PSA progression and local progression in prostate (n = 7/11, 63.6%) in patients with PSA progression without PPP. CONCLUSIONS: PSMA PET/CT showed very high detection rates of malignant lesions even at very low PSA values and showed significant concordance with PSA response when monitoring treatment response in patients receiving systemic treatment for mPCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study describes that prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET), a new sensitive imaging tool, can detect malignant lesions even at very low prostate-specific antigen values when monitoring metastatic prostate cancer. The PSMA PET response and biochemical response showed significant concordance, and the reason for discordant results seems to be the different responses of metastatic lesions and prostatic lesions to systemic treatment.