Predicting 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT Scan Positivity in Prostate Cancer Patients with Biochemical Recurrence.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To analyze variables that can predict the positivity of 18F-DCFPyL- positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and extent of disease in patients with biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer after primary local therapy with either radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective single institutional review board-approved study. We included 199 patients with biochemical recurrence and negative conventional imaging after primary local therapies (radical prostatectomy n = 127, radiation therapy n = 72). All patients underwent 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine predictors of a positive scan for both cohort of patients. Regression-based coefficients were used to develop nomograms predicting scan positivity and extra-pelvic disease. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was implemented to quantify nomogram's clinical benefit. RESULTS: Of the 127 (63%) post-radical prostatectomy patients, 91 patients had positive scans - 61 of those with intrapelvic lesions and 30 with extra-pelvic lesions (i.e., retroperitoneal or distant nodes and/or bone/organ lesions). Of the 72 post-radiation therapy patients, 65 patients had positive scans - 39 of them had intrapelvic lesions and 26 extra-pelvic lesions. In the radical prostatectomy cohort, multivariate regression analysis revealed original International Society of Urological Pathology category, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSAdt), and time from BCR (mo) to scan were predictors for scan positivity and presence of extra-pelvic disease, with an area under the curve of 80% and 78%, respectively. Positive versus negative tumor margin after radical prostatectomy was not related to scan positivity or to the presence of positive extra-pelvic foci. In the radiation therapy cohort, multivariate regression analysis revealed that PSA, PSAdt, and time to BCR (mo) were predictors of extra-pelvic disease, with area under the curve of 82%. Because only seven patients in the radiation therapy cohort had negative scans, a prediction model for scan positivity could not be analyzed and only the presence of extra-pelvic disease was evaluated. CONCLUSION: PSA and PSAdt are consistently significant predictors of 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT positivity and extra-pelvic disease in BCR prostate cancer patients. Stratifying the patient population into primary local treatment group enables the use of other variables as predictors, such as time since BCR. This nomogram may guide selection of the most suitable candidates for 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT imaging.

Smartphone Augmented Reality Outperforms Conventional CT Guidance for Composite Ablation Margins in Phantom Models.

PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a smartphone augmented reality (AR) system for a large 50-mm liver tumor ablation with treatment planning for composite overlapping ablation zones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A smartphone AR application was developed to display tumor, probe, projected probe paths, ablated zones, and real-time percentage of the ablated target tumor volume. Fiducial markers were attached to phantoms and an ablation probe hub for tracking. The system was evaluated with tissue-mimicking thermochromic phantoms and gel phantoms. Four interventional radiologists performed 2 trials each of 3 probe insertions per trial using AR guidance versus computed tomography (CT) guidance approaches in 2 gel phantoms. Insertion points and optimal probe paths were predetermined. On Gel Phantom 2, serial ablated zones were saved and continuously displayed after each probe placement/adjustment, enabling feedback and iterative planning. The percentages of tumor ablated for AR guidance versus CT guidance, and with versus without display of recorded ablated zones, were compared among interventional radiologists with pairwise t-tests. RESULTS: The means of percentages of tumor ablated for CT freehand and AR guidance were 36% ± 7 and 47% ± 4 (P = .004), respectively. The mean composite percentages of tumor ablated for AR guidance were 43% ± 1 (without) and 50% ± 2 (with display of ablation zone) (P = .033). There was no strong correlation between AR-guided percentage of ablation and years of experience (r < 0.5), whereas there was a strong correlation between CT-guided percentage of ablation and years of experience (r > 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: A smartphone AR guidance system for dynamic iterative large liver tumor ablation was accurate, performed better than conventional CT guidance, especially for less experienced interventional radiologists, and enhanced more standardized performance across experience levels for ablation of a 50-mm tumor.