Comparison of Multiple Segmentation Methods for Volumetric Delineation of Primary Prostate Cancer with Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Targeted 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT.

This study aimed to assess the accuracy of intraprostatic tumor volume measurements on prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT made with various segmentation methods. An accurate understanding of tumor volumes versus segmentation techniques is critical for therapy planning, such as radiation dose volume determination and response assessment. Methods: Twenty-five men with clinically localized, high-risk prostate cancer were imaged with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT before radical prostatectomy. The tumor volumes and tumor-to-prostate ratios (TPRs) of dominant intraprostatic foci of uptake were determined using semiautomatic segmentation (applying SUVmax percentage [SUV%] thresholds of SUV30%-SUV70%), adaptive segmentation (using adaptive segmentation percentage [A%] thresholds of A30%-A70%), and manual contouring. The histopathologic tumor volume (TV-Histo) served as the reference standard. The significance of differences between TV-Histo and PET-based tumor volume were assessed using the paired-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to establish the strength of the association between TV-Histo and PET-derived tumor volume. Results: Median TV-Histo was 2.03 cm3 (interquartile ratio [IQR], 1.16-3.36 cm3), and median TPR was 10.16%. The adaptive method with an A40% threshold most closely determined the tumor volume, with a median difference of +0.19 (IQR, -0.71 to +2.01) and a median relative difference of +7.6%. The paired-sample Wilcoxon test showed no significant difference in PET-derived tumor volume and TV-Histo using A40%, A50%, SUV40%, and SUV50% threshold segmentation algorithms (P > 0.05). For both threshold-based segmentation methods, use of higher thresholds (e.g., SUV60% or SUV70% and A50%-A70%) resulted in underestimation of tumor volumes, and use of lower thresholds (e.g., SUV30% or SUV40% and A30%) resulted in overestimation of tumor volumes relative to TV-Histo and TPR. Manual segmentation overestimated the tumor volume, with a median difference of +2.49 (IQR, 0.42-4.11) and a median relative difference of +130%. Conclusion: Segmentation of intraprostatic tumor volume and TPR with an adaptive segmentation approach most closely approximates TV-Histo. This information might be used to guide the primary treatment of men with clinically localized, high-risk prostate cancer.

Prospective Evaluation of PSMA-Targeted 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT in Men with Biochemical Failure After Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer.

Our purpose is to provide the results of a prospective study evaluating prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted 18F-DCFPyL (2-(3-{1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid) PET/CT in patients with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Thirty-one patients with postprostatectomy serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of at least 0.2 ng/mL and negative conventional imaging results were enrolled in this study and imaged with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT. A consensus central review identified foci of radiotracer uptake consistent with sites of PCa. Descriptive statistics were used. Results: Twenty-one patients (67.7%) had at least 1 finding on 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT consistent with a site of PCa. Imaging was positive in 59.1% of patients with a PSA level of less than 1.0 ng/mL and in 88.9% of patients with a PSA level of more than 1.0 ng/mL. The median SUVmax across all lesions was 11.6 (range, 1.5-57.6). Conclusion: In this prospective study using the prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted PET agent 18F-DCFPyL, most patients with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy had foci of suggestive uptake, even at low serum PSA levels.

Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen Targeted 18F-DCFPyL Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography for the Preoperative Staging of High Risk Prostate Cancer: Results of a Prospective, Phase II, Single Center Study.

PURPOSE: We prospectively evaluated the diagnostic performance of prostate specific membrane antigen targeted 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography in the preoperative staging of men at high risk for harboring metastatic prostate cancer despite a negative conventional staging evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with clinically localized high or very high risk prostate cancer were imaged with 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography before undergoing radical prostatectomy with standardized pelvic lymph node dissection. The scans were interpreted by 2 blinded nuclear medicine readers and assessed for interreader variability as well as diagnostic accuracy for pelvic lymph node staging. Surgical pathology served as the reference standard to which 18F-DCFPyL scan findings were compared. RESULTS: A total of 25 men contributed analyzable data to this study. Seven of these patients (28%) were found to have 1 or more positive lymph nodes on surgical pathology. Sites of radiotracer uptake were identified in the prostate of all imaged patients. The 2 readers identified the same number of prostatic lesions in 22 patients (88%), of whom all had at least 1 intraprostatic lesion in common between the 2 reads. Additionally, the readers assigned the same N stage to 46 of 50 individual lymph node packets (92%). Following reconciliation of the relatively few discordant imaging reads, 7 patients (28%) were found to have 1 or more sites of radiotracer uptake in the pelvis consistent with N1 disease, resulting in 71.4% sensitivity (95% CI 29.0-96.3) and 88.9% specificity (95% CI 65.3-98.6). Analysis at the level of individual nodal packets resulted in 66.7% sensitivity (95% CI 29.9-92.5) and 92.7% specificity (95% CI 80.1-98.5). Three men (12%) had evidence of M1a disease. CONCLUSIONS: 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography allowed for accurate detection of prostate cancer sites in men believed to have clinically localized disease based on conventional imaging. Our results support the need for a larger study to more precisely define the diagnostic accuracy of this novel molecular imaging test.