Consecutive Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) and Antigen Receptor (AR) PET Imaging Shows Positive Correlation with AR and PSMA Protein Expression in Primary Hormone-Naïve Prostate Cancer.

The present study was carried out to investigate whether PET imaging can be used as a potential substitute for immunohistochemical analysis of tumor samples in prostate cancer (PC) patients. Correlation between imaging signals of 2 PET tracers and the corresponding target structures was assessed. The first tracer was [68Ga]Ga-PSMA (prostate-specific membrane antigen)-HBED-CC (N,N'-bis [2-hydroxy-5-(carboxyethyl)benzyl]ethylenediamine-N,N'-diacetic acid) [68Ga]Ga-PSMAHBED-CC ([68Ga]PSMA), which is already implemented in clinical routines. The second tracer was 16ß-[18F]fluoro-5α-dihydrotestosterone (16ß-[18F]FDHT), which binds to the androgen receptor (AR). The AR is particularly interesting in PC, because AR expression status and its shift during therapy might directly influence patient care. Methods: This prospective, explorative clinical study included 10 newly diagnosed PC patients. Each patient underwent [68Ga]PSMA PET/MRI and [18F]FDHT PET/MRI scans before prostatectomy. Cancer SUVs were determined and related to background SUVs. After prostatectomy, tumor tissue was sampled, and AR and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression was determined. AR and PSMA expression was evaluated quantitatively with the open-source bioimage analysis software QuPath and with a 4-tier rating system. Correlation between imaging signals and marker expression was statistically assessed. Results: For [18F]FDHT, the SUVmax/SUVbackground ratio showed a significant, strong correlation (r = 0.72; P = 0.019) with the AR optical density of the correlating tissue sample. The correlation between PSMA optical density and the [68Ga]PSMA SUVmax/SUVbackground ratio was not significant (P = 0.061), yet a positive correlation trend could be observed (r = 0.61). SUVmax/SUVbackground ratios were higher for [68Ga]PSMA (mean ± SD, 34.9 ± 24.8) than for [18F]FDHT (4.8 ± 1.2). In line with these findings, the tumor detection rates were 90% for the [68Ga]PSMA PET scan but only 40% for the [18F]FDHT PET scan. The 4-tier rating of PSMA staining intensity yielded very homogeneous results, with values of 3+ for most subjects (90%). AR staining was rated as 1+ in 2 patients (20%), 2+ in 4 patients (40%), and 3+ in 4 patients (40%). Conclusion: [18F]FDHT PET may be useful for monitoring AR expression and alterations in AR expression during treatment of PC patients. This approach may facilitate early detection of treatment resistance and allows for adaptation of therapy to prevent cancer progression. [18F]FDHT PET is inferior to [68Ga]PSMA PET for primary PC diagnosis, but the correlation between [68Ga]PSMA SUVs and PSMA expression is weaker than that between [18F]FDHT and the AR.

Serial [18F]-FDHT-PET to predict bicalutamide efficacy in patients with androgen receptor positive metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The androgen receptor (AR) is a potential target in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), and 16ß-[18F]-fluoro-5α-dihydrotestosterone positron emission tomography ([18F]-FDHT-PET) can be used for noninvasive visualisation of AR. [18F]-FDHT uptake reduction during AR-targeting therapy reflects AR occupancy and might be predictive for treatment response. We assessed the feasibility of [18F]-FDHT-PET to detect changes in AR availability during bicalutamide treatment and correlated these changes with treatment response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with AR + MBC, regardless of oestrogen receptor status, received an [18F]-FDHT-PET at baseline and after 4-6 weeks bicalutamide treatment. Baseline [18F]-FDHT uptake was expressed as maximum standardised uptake value. Percentage change in tracer uptake, corrected for background activity (SUVcor), between baseline and follow-up PET scan (% reduction), was assessed per-patient and lesion. Clinical benefit was determined in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1 or clinical evaluation (absence of disease progression for ≥24 weeks). RESULTS: Baseline [18F]-FDHT-PET in 21 patients detected 341 of 515 lesions found with standard imaging and 21 new lesions. Follow-up [18F]-FDHT-PET was evaluable in 17 patients with 349 lesions, showing a decrease in median SUVcor from 1.3 to 0.7 per-patient and lesion (P < 0.001). Median % reduction per-patient was -45% and per-lesion -39%. In patients with progressive disease (n = 11), median % reduction was -30% versus -53% for patients who showed clinical benefit (in accordance with RECIST (n = 3) or clinical evaluation (n = 3); P = 0.338). CONCLUSION: In this feasibility study, a bicalutamide-induced reduction in [18F]-FDHT uptake could be detected by follow-up [18F]-FDHT-PET in patients with AR + MBC. However, this change could not predict bicalutamide response. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT02697032.

Visual and quantitative evaluation of [18F]FES and [18F]FDHT PET in patients with metastatic breast cancer: an interobserver variability study.

PURPOSE: Correct identification of tumour receptor status is important for treatment decisions in breast cancer. [18F]FES PET and [18F]FDHT PET allow non-invasive assessment of the oestrogen (ER) and androgen receptor (AR) status of individual lesions within a patient. Despite standardised analysis techniques, interobserver variability can significantly affect the interpretation of PET results and thus clinical applicability. The purpose of this study was to determine visual and quantitative interobserver variability of [18F]FES PET and [18F]FDHT PET interpretation in patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In this prospective, two-centre study, patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer underwent both [18F]FES and [18F]FDHT PET/CT. In total, 120 lesions were identified in 10 patients with either conventional imaging (bone scan or lesions > 1 cm on high-resolution CT, n = 69) or only with [18F]FES and [18F]FDHT PET (n = 51). All lesions were scored visually and quantitatively by two independent observers. A visually PET-positive lesion was defined as uptake above background. For quantification, we used standardised uptake values (SUV): SUVmax, SUVpeak and SUVmean. RESULTS: Visual analysis showed an absolute positive and negative interobserver agreement for [18F]FES PET of 84% and 83%, respectively (kappa = 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.87), and 49% and 74% for [18F]FDHT PET, respectively (kappa = 0.23, 95% CI - 0.04-0.49). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for quantification of SUVmax, SUVpeak and SUVmean were 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.98), 0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.98) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.92) for [18F]FES, and 0.78 (95% CI 0.66-0.85), 0.76 (95% CI 0.63-0.84) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.62-0.84) for [18F]FDHT, respectively. CONCLUSION: Visual and quantitative evaluation of [18F]FES PET showed high interobserver agreement. These results support the use of [18F]FES PET in clinical practice. In contrast, visual agreement for [18F]FDHT PET was relatively low due to low tumour-background ratios, but quantitative agreement was good. This underscores the relevance of quantitative analysis of [18F]FDHT PET in breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01988324. Registered 20 November 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01988324?term=FDHT+PET&draw=1&rank=2.

Androgen and Estrogen Receptor Imaging in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients as a Surrogate for Tissue Biopsies.

In addition to the well-known estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, the androgen receptor (AR) is also a potential drug target in breast cancer treatment. Whole-body imaging can provide information across lesions within a patient. ER expression in tumor lesions can be visualized by 18F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) PET, and AR expression has been visualized in prostate cancer patients with 18F-fluorodihydrotestosterone (18F-FDHT) PET. Our aim was to assess the concordance between 18F-FDHT and 18F-FES PET and tumor AR and ER expression measured immunohistochemically in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Methods: Patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer were eligible for the study, irrespective of tumor AR status. The concordance of 18F-FDHT and 18F-FES uptake on PET with immunohistochemical expression of AR and ER in biopsies of corresponding metastases was analyzed. Patients underwent 18F-FDHT PET and 18F-FES PET. A metastasis was biopsied within 8 wk of the PET procedures. Tumor samples with more than 10% and 1% nuclear tumor cell staining were considered, respectively, AR- and ER-positive. Correlations between PET uptake and semiquantitative immunohistochemical scoring (percentage positive cells × intensity) were calculated. The optimum threshold of SUV to discriminate positive and negative lesions for both AR and ER was determined by receiver-operating-characteristic analysis. Results: In the 13 evaluable patients, correlation (R2 ) between semiquantitative AR expression and 18F-FDHT uptake was 0.47 (P = 0.01) and between semiquantitative ER expression and 18F-FES uptake 0.78 (P = 0.01). The optimal cutoff for AR-positive lesions was an SUVmax of 1.94 for 18F-FDHT PET, yielding a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 100%; the optimal cutoff was an SUVmax of 1.54 for 18F-FES PET, resulting in a sensitivity and specificity of 100% for ER. Conclusion:18F-FDHT and 18F-FES uptake correlate well with AR and ER expression levels in representative biopsies. These results show the potential use of whole-body imaging for receptor status assessment, particularly in view of biopsy-associated sampling errors and heterogeneous receptor expression in breast cancer metastases.