Fluorine-18-labelled Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Diagnose and Localise Prostate Cancer. A Prospective Single-arm Paired Comparison (PEDAL).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate is used for prostate cancer diagnosis. However, mpMRI has lower sensitivity for small tumours. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) offers increased sensitivity over conventional imaging. This study aims to determine whether the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-DCFPyL PSMA-PET/CT was superior to that of mpMRI for detecting prostate cancer (PCa) at biopsy. METHODS: Between 2020 and 2021, a prospective multicentre single-arm phase 3 imaging trial enrolled patients with clinical suspicion for PCa to have both mpMRI and PSMA-PET/CT (thorax to thigh), with reviewers blinded to the results of other imaging. Multiparametric MRI was considered positive for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) 3-5. PSMA-PET/CT was assessed quantitatively (positive maximum standardised uptake value [SUVmax] >7) and qualitatively (five-point lexicon of certainty). Patients underwent targeted and systematic biopsy, with the technique at the discretion of the treating urologist. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) ≥2. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy for detecting PCa, reported as sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating curve. The secondary endpoints included a comparison of the diagnostic accuracy for detecting csPCa, assessing gains in combining PMSA-PET/CT with mpMRI to mpMRI alone. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 236 patients completing both mpMRI and PSMA-PET/CT, 184 (76.7%) had biopsy. Biopsy histology was benign (n = 73), GG 1 (n = 27), and GG ≥2 (n = 84). The diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI for detecting PCa (AUC 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69, 0.82) was higher than that of PSMA-PET/CT (AUC 0.63; 95% CI 0.56, 0.70, p = 0.03). The diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI for detecting csPCa (AUC 0.72; 95% CI 0.67, 0.78) was higher than that of PSMA-PET/CT (AUC 0.62; 95% CI 0.55, 0.69) but not statistically significant (p = 0.27). A combination of PSMA-PET/CT and mpMRI showed excellent sensitivity (98.8%, 95% CI 93.5%, 100%) and NPV (96%, 95% CI 79.6%, 99.9%) over mpMRI alone (86.9% and 80.7%, respectively, p = 0.01). Thirty-two patients (13.6%) had metastatic disease. They tended to be older (68.4 vs 65.1 yr, p = 0.023), and have higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA; median PSA 9.6 vs 6.2ng/ml, p < 0.001) and abnormal prostate on digital rectal examination (78.2% vs 44.1%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Multiparametric MRI had superior diagnostic accuracy to PSMA-PET/CT for detecting PCa, though the difference is not significant in case of csPCa detection. A combination of mpMRI and PSMA-PET/CT showed improved sensitivity and NPV. PSMA-PET/CT could be considered for diagnostic use in patients unable to have mpMRI or those with concerning clinical features but negative mpMRI. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this trial, we compared the ability of 18F-labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) with that of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to diagnose prostate cancer by biopsy in a prostate-specific antigen screening population. We found that MRI was superior to PSMA to diagnose prostate cancer, though there was no difference in ability to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer. PSMA-PET/CT could be considered for diagnostic use in patients unable to have mpMRI or those with concerning clinical features but negative mpMRI. Combining MRI with PSMA-PET increases the negative predictive value over MRI alone and may help men avoid invasive prostate biopsy.

Reproducibility and Accuracy of the PRIMARY Score on PSMA PET and of PI-RADS on Multiparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis Within a Real-World Database.

The PRIMARY score is a 5-category scale developed to identify clinically significant intraprostate malignancy (csPCa) on 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 PET/CT (68Ga-PSMA PET) using a combination of anatomic site, pattern, and intensity. Developed within the PRIMARY trial, the score requires evaluation in external datasets. This study aimed to assess the reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy of the PRIMARY score in a cohort of patients who underwent multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and 68Ga-PSMA PET before prostate biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Methods: In total, data from 242 men who had undergone 68Ga-PSMA PET and mpMRI before transperineal prostate biopsy were available for this ethics-approved retrospective study. 68Ga-PSMA PET and mpMRI data were centrally collated in a cloud-based deidentified image database. Six experienced prostate-focused nuclear medicine specialists were trained (1 h) in applying the PRIMARY score with 30 sample images. Six radiologists experienced in prostate mpMRI read images as per the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), version 2.1. All images were read (with masking of clinical information) at least twice, with discordant findings sent to a masked third (or fourth) reader as necessary. Cohen κ was determined for both imaging scales as 5 categories and then collapsed to binary (negative and positive) categories (score 1 or 2 vs. 3, 4, or 5). Diagnostic performance parameters were calculated, with an International Society of Urological Pathology grade group of at least 2 (csPCa) on biopsy defined as the gold standard. Combined-imaging-positive results were defined as any PI-RADS score of 4 or 5 or as a PI-RADS score of 1-3 with a PRIMARY score of 3-5. Results: In total, 227 patients with histopathology, 68Ga-PSMA PET, and mpMRI imaging before prostate biopsy were included; 33% had no csPCa, and 67% had csPCa. Overall interrater reliability was higher for the PRIMARY scale (κ = 0.70) than for PI-RADS (κ = 0.58) when assessed as a binary category (benign vs. malignant). This was similar for all 5 categories (κ = 0.65 vs. 0.48). Diagnostic performance to detect csPCa was comparable between PSMA PET and mpMRI (sensitivity, 86% vs. 89%; specificity, 76% vs. 74%; positive predictive value, 88% vs. 88%; negative predictive value, 72% vs. 76%). Using combined imaging, sensitivity was 94%, specificity was 68%, positive predictive value was 86%, and negative predictive value was 85%. Conclusion: The PRIMARY score applied by first-user nuclear medicine specialists showed substantial interrater reproducibility, exceeding that of PI-RADS applied by mpMRI-experienced radiologists. Diagnostic performance was similar between the 2 modalities. The PRIMARY score should be considered when interpreting intraprostatic PSMA PET images.

Investigating PSMA-PET/CT to resolve prostate MRI PIRADS4-5 and negative biopsy discordance.

BACKGROUND: To determine the utility of diagnostic 18F-DCPyL PSMA-PET/CT to aid management of men with highly suspicious multiparametric MRI prostate (PIRAD 4-5 lesions) and discrepant negative prostate biopsy. METHODS: A multicentre prospective consecutive case series was conducted (2018-2021), recruiting men with prior mpMRI prostate PIRADS 4-5 lesions and negative prostate biopsy. All men had 18F-DCPyL PSMA-PET/CT with subsequent management based on the concordance between MRI and PET: (1) Concordant lesions were biopsied using in-bore MRI targeting; (2) PSMA-PET/CT avidity without MRI correlate were biopsied using cognitive/software targeting with ultrasound guidance and (3) Patients with negative PET/CT were returned to standard of care follow-up. RESULTS: 29 patients were recruited with 48% (n = 14) having concordant MRI/PET abnormalities. MRI targeted biopsy found prostate cancer in six patients, with grade groups GG3 (n = 1), GG2 (n = 1), GG1 (n = 4) found. Of the 20 men who PSMA-PET/CT avidity and biopsy, analysis showed higher SUVmax (20.1 vs 6.8, p = 0.036) predicted prostate cancer. Of patients who had PSMA-PET avidity without MRI correlate, and those with no PSMA-PET avidity, only one patient was subsequently found to have prostate cancer (GG1). The study is limited by small size and short follow-up of 17 months (IQR 12.5-29.9). CONCLUSIONS: PSMA-PET/CT is useful in this group of men but requires further investigation. Avidity (higher SUVmax) that correlates to the mpMRI prostate lesion should be considered for targeted biopsy.

PEDAL protocol: a prospective single-arm paired comparison of multiparametric MRI and 18F-DCPFyl PSMA PET/CT to diagnose prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) has emerged as valuable imaging to assessing metastatic disease in prostate malignancy. However, there has been limited studies exploring the utility PSMA-PET as primary imaging assessing for index lesions prior to biopsy. The primary objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of 18-fluorine PSMA (18F DCFPyL PSMA) PET scans to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) to detect primary prostate cancer at prostate biopsy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PEDAL trial is a multicentre, prospective, single-arm, paired comparison, non-randomised phase III trial in subjects considered for diagnostic prostate biopsy. Subjects who are eligible for a diagnostic mpMRI prostate will undergo additional same-day 18 F DCFPyl PSMA PET/CT of the chest, abdomen and pelvis. Software coregistration of the mpMRI and PSMA-PET/CT images will be performed. The reporting of the mpMRI prostate, PSMA-PET/CT and PSMA PET/MRI coregistration will be performed blinded. The diagnostic accuracy of PSMA PET/CT alone, and in combination with mpMRI, to detect prostate cancer will be assessed. Histopathology at prostate biopsy will be used as the reference standard. Sample size calculations estimate that 240 subjects will need to be recruited to demonstrate 20% superiority of PSMA-PET/CT. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the combination of mpMRI prostate and PSMA PET/CT compared with targeted and systematic prostate biopsy will be evaluated. It is hypothesised that PSMA PET/CT combined with mpMRI prostate will have improved diagnostic accuracy compared with mpMRI prostate alone for detection of prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men, resulting in a significant impact on patient management. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the independent Human Research Ethics Committee. Results will be published in peer-reviewed medical journals with eligible investigators will significantly contribute. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620000261910.

Pathological predictors of 18 F-DCFPyL prostate-specific membrane antigen-positive recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the correlation of pathological radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen features and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) characteristics to imaging findings on subsequent 18 F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with biochemical failure (BF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of combined 18 F-DCFPyL PET/CT database of patients from centres in Australia and New Zealand was performed. A total of 205 patients presenting with BF after RP were included in this study. Imaging findings on 18 F-DCFPyL PET/CT were recorded and correlated with the PSA characteristics at BF and pathological features of the original tumour. RESULTS: Of the 205 patients, 120 (58.5%) had evidence of abnormal prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression compatible with recurrent prostate cancer. Increasing PSA velocity (P = 0.01), International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group (P = 0.02), lymphovascular invasion (P = 0.05) and nodal positivity (P = 0.02) at the time of RP were more likely to demonstrate PSMA positivity. Multivariable logistic regression revealed a higher PSA level prior to PSMA PET/CT (P < 0.01), adjuvant radiotherapy (P = 0.09), Gleason score ≥8 (P < 0.01) and nodal positivity (P = 0.05) were all predictive of PSMA positivity. CONCLUSION: 18 F-DCFPyL PET/CT positivity, both generally and site specific, correlates with PSA and RP pathological factors. Our results echo cohorts focussing on post-RP patients, those imaged with 68 Ga-PSMA and those concerning biochemical persistence. Nomograms that include risk factors for 'PSMA-positive recurrence' in the BF population may increase the catchment of patients with disease confined to the prostate bed or pelvis who have a greater probability of prolonged disease-free survival.

Non-prostate cancer tumours: incidence on 18F-DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT and uptake characteristics in 1445 patients.

PURPOSE: With increasing use of PSMA PET/CT in the staging and restaging of prostate cancer (PCa), the identification of non-prostate cancer tumours (NPCaT) has become an increasing clinical dilemma. Atypical presentations of PSMA expression in prostate cancer and expression in NPCaT are not well established. Understanding the normal and abnormal distribution of PSMA expression is essential in preparing clinically relevant reports and in guiding multidisciplinary discussion and decisions. METHODS: Retrospective review of 1445 consecutive 18F-DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT studies by experienced radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians. Lesions indeterminate for PCa were identified. Correlation was made with patient records, biopsy results, and dedicated imaging. Lesions were then categorized into four groups: 1. Confirmed prostate cancer, metastases, 2. NPCaT 3. Benign, and 4. Indeterminate lesions. RESULTS: 68/1445 patients had lesions atypical for prostate cancer metastases. These comprised 8/68 (11.8%) atypical prostate cancer metastases, 17/68 (25.0%) NPCaT, 29/68 (42.6%) indeterminate, and 14/68 (20.6%) benign. In the context of the entire cohort, these are adjusted to 8/1445 (0.6%), 17/1445 (1.2%), 29/1445 (2.0%), and 14/1445 (1.0%) respectively. With the exception of Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC), NPCaT demonstrated no or low PSMA expression. A similar trend was also observed for indeterminate and benign lesions. Conversely, most atypical PCa metastases demonstrated intermediate or high PSMA expression. CONCLUSION: 18F-DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT detection of NPCaT is low. Lesions demonstrating intermediate to high PSMA expression were exclusively prostate cancer metastases, aside from RCC, and lesions detected in organs with high background expression.

Combination of MRI prostate and 18F-DCFPyl PSMA PET/CT detects all clinically significant prostate cancers in treatment-naive patients: An international multicentre retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical and biochemical assessment and biopsies can miss clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa) in up to 20% of patients and diagnose clinically insignificant tumours leading to overtreatment. This retrospective study analyses the accuracy of 18 F-DCFPyL PET/CT in detecting csPCa as a primary diagnostic tool and directly compares it with mpMRI prostate in treatment-naive patients. The two modalities are then correlated to determine whether they are better in combination, than either alone. METHODS: This is a retrospective dual-institution study of patients who underwent contemporaneous MRI and PSMA-PET between January 2017 and March 2020 with histologic confirmation. The images were re-reviewed and concordance between modalities assessed. Results were compared with histopathology to determine the ability of MRI and PSMA-PET to detect csPCA. RESULTS: MRI and PSMA-PET detected the same index lesion in 90.8% of cases with a kappa of 0.82. PET detected an additional 6.2% of index lesions which were MRI occult. MRI detected an additional 3.1% which were PET occult. No additional csPCa was identified on pathology which was not seen on imaging. The sensitivity of PSMA-PET in detecting csPCa is 96.7% and that of MRI is 93.4% with no statistically significant difference between the two (P = 0.232). Both modalities detected all four cases of non-csPCa with these being considered false positives. CONCLUSION: Both mpMRI and 18F-DCFPyL-PSMA-PET/CT have high sensitivity for detecting csPCa with high agreement between modalities. There were no synchronous csPCa lesions detected on pathology that were not detected on imaging too.

[18F]DCFPyL PET/CT in detection and localization of recurrent prostate cancer following prostatectomy including low PSA < 0.5 ng/mL.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this retrospective multicenter analysis was to assess the performance of PSMA PET/CT using [18F]DCFPyL in the detection and localization of recurrent prostate cancer post radical prostatectomy (RP). Particular reference is given to low PSA groups < 0.5 ng/mL to aid discussion around the inclusion of this group in PSMA guidelines and funding pathways. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of combined PSMA database patients from centers in Australia and New Zealand. Two hundred twenty-two patients presenting with recurrence post RP were stratified into five PSA groups (ng/mL): 0-0.19, 0.2-0.49, 0.5-0.99, 1-1.99, and ≥ 2. Lesions detected by [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT were recorded as local recurrence, locoregional nodes, and metastases. RESULTS: Of 222 patients, 155 (69.8%) had evidence of abnormal uptake suggestive of recurrent prostate cancer. The detection efficacies for [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT were 91.7% (44/48) for PSA levels ≥ 2 ng/mL, 82.1% (23/28) for PSA levels 1-1.99 ng/mL, 62.8% (27/43) for PSA levels 0.5-0.99 ng/mL, 58.7% (54/92) for PSA levels 0.2-0.49 ng/mL, and 63.6% (7/11) for PSA levels ≤ 0.2 ng/mL. In those with PSA < 0.5 ng/mL, 47.6% (49/103) had detectable lesions, 71.4% (35/49) had disease confined to the pelvis, 22.4% (11/49) had prostate bed recurrence, 49.0% (24/49) had pelvic lymph nodes, and 28.6% (14/49) had extra pelvic disease. CONCLUSION: [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT has a high detection rate in recurrence following RP even at low PSA levels with similar detection levels in the PSA subgroups < 0.5 ng/mL. Employing rigid PSA thresholds when constructing guidelines for PSMA PET/CT funding eligibility may result in a significant number of patients below such thresholds having delayed or inappropriate treatment.

Computed tomography colonography: Retrospective comparison of laxative plus barium tagging versus iodinated contrast only for bowel preparation and faecal tagging.

INTRODUCTION: There is no consensus as to the most optimal bowel preparation regime for Computed Tomographic Colonography (CTC). Concerns regarding laxative bowel preparation (LBP) include tolerability, adverse effects and complexity of regimen. Two hospitals in Auckland changed CTC bowel preparation from standard LBP to Gastrografin (GG) in 2015. The aim of this study is to retrospectively assess objective and subjective quality measures of these different bowel preparations. METHODS: Two study groups were selected retrospectively from patients who underwent CTC at two hospitals in September-October 2013 (LBP) and September- October 2015 (GG). Each study group comprised 60 patients (30 consecutive patients from each hospital). Patients were randomized and anonymized to reduce bias in analysis. Study patients were assessed independently by three experienced Radiologists using a simple grading system derived from the literature. RESULTS: There was significantly less faecal residue (P = 0.006) and better faecal tagging (P = 0.001) in the right colon in the GG group. There was significantly higher fluid residue in the GG group than the LBP group (P = 0.0001), particularly in the right colon, with better fluid tagging in the GG group(P ≤ 0.0001). Higher Hounsfield Units of residual fluid were observed in the GG group (P ≤ 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in the subjective quality scores (P = 0.219), between the two preparations. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated better faecal cleansing and faecal tagging in the GG group. Higher fluid residue in the GG group was offset by better fluid tagging.

Prevalence of and risk factors for hepatic steatosis and nonalcoholic Fatty liver disease in people with type 2 diabetes: the Edinburgh Type 2 Diabetes Study.

OBJECTIVE: Type 2 diabetes is an established risk factor for development of hepatic steatosis and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We aimed to determine the prevalence and clinical correlates of these conditions in a large cohort of people with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 939 participants, aged 61-76 years, from the Edinburgh Type 2 Diabetes Study (ET2DS)-a large, randomly selected population of people with type 2 diabetes-underwent liver ultrasonography. Ultrasound gradings of steatosis were compared with magnetic resonance spectroscopy in a subgroup. NAFLD was defined as hepatic steatosis in the absence of a secondary cause (screened by questionnaire assessing alcohol and hepatotoxic medication use, plasma hepatitis serology, autoantibodies and ferritin, and record linkage to determine prior diagnoses of liver disease). Binary logistic regression was used to analyze independent associations of characteristics with NAFLD. RESULTS: Hepatic steatosis was present in 56.9% of participants. After excluding those with a secondary cause for steatosis, the prevalence of NAFLD in the study population was 42.6%. Independent predictors of NAFLD were BMI, lesser duration of diabetes, HbA(1c), triglycerides, and metformin use. These remained unchanged after exclusion of participants with evidence of hepatic fibrosis from the group with no hepatic steatosis. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalences of hepatic steatosis and NAFLD were high in this unselected population of older people with type 2 diabetes, but lower than in studies in which ultrasound gradings were not compared with a gold standard. Associations with features of the metabolic syndrome could be used to target screening for this condition.