![Open Access](/resources/images/iconopenaccess.png)
New perspectives on metabolic imaging in the management of prostate cancer in 2022: A focus on radiolabeled PSMA‑PET/CT (Review)
- Authors:
- Published online on: May 18, 2023 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2023.2647
- Article Number: 51
-
Copyright: © Simon et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.
Abstract
1. Introduction
Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer affecting men worldwide, with 1.41 million cases in 2020 according to the World Health Organization, and is responsible for 375000 deaths every year (1).
Optimal patient care is based on clinical features as well as biological, histological and imaging data. With such information, clinicians are better able to offer suitable therapeutic options to their patient. Nuclear medicine is an essential part of prostate cancer management concerning initial staging, patient's follow-up and even therapy. In fact, developments in metabolic imaging techniques, from bone scintigraphy to positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), have led to more accurate initial diagnosis as well as diagnosis of cancer recurrence during patients' follow-up period.
In this article, we will discuss more specifically the interest of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), a promising radiotracer.
PSMA is a glutamate carboxypeptidase II transmembrane glycoprotein expressed by 80% of prostatic cells (2). Its interest resides in its specificity for prostatic tissue, including carcinoma cells, with the caveat that its fixation to some other non-prostatic malignancies and benign lesions can result in false positives.
In recent years, the potential of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA PET/CT) has been widely recognized, both as a tool in the diagnosis and follow-up of intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer as well as theranostic applications. However, the risk of false positives raises questions about its place in the management of patients with prostate cancer.
Despite updates on prostate cancer management guidelines from globally influential associations such as the European Association of Urologists or the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the place of PSMA PET/CT in everyday practice remains unclear (3,4).
The aim of this article is to review the contribution of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT to initial staging and diagnosis, to clarify its use in patients' follow-up and to discuss the theranostic use of 177-Lutetium-PSMA (177Lu-PSMA). Finally, we will consider possible resistance mechanisms and ways to overcome them, along with other new radionuclides associated with PSMA.
2. Clinical staging and initial management impact
T-staging
Clinical T staging is based initially on digital rectal exam (5,6). In recent years, however, MRI has clearly emerged as a staging tool, including initial staging, due to its high sensitivity for local staging in intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer and excellent negative predictive value in low-risk patients (7). This is an important consideration in the decision-making process with regard to nerve sparing strategies in radical prostatectomy for this group (8).
In a retrospective study assessing the accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT compared with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in primary prostate cancer lesions, Kalapara et al reported no significant difference for the detection of any tumor (94% vs. 95%, P>0.9) and localization of all tumors (91% vs. 89%, P=0.47) (9).
N-staging
68Ga-PSMA PET/CT has proven its usefulness in lymph node detection for intermediate and high-risk patients in several studies (10).
In a meta-analysis including a total of 1,597 patients, Wu et al showed that 68Ga-PSMA had both higher sensitivity and specificity [0.65 (95% CI: 0.49-0.79) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-0.97)] compared with MRI [0.41 (95% CI: 0.26-0.57) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86-0.95)] for the detection of lymph node metastases in the staging workup for intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer (11).
Similarly, Herlemann et al, comparing the accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA and Computed Tomography (CT) in detecting lymph node metastases, reported higher sensitivity (84% vs. 65%), specificity (82% vs. 76%), positive predictive value (84% vs. 75%), and negative predictive value (82% vs. 67%) with 68Ga-PSMA (12).
However, the implications for patient care are not entirely clear. A multicenter prospective phase 3 imaging trial by Hope et al assessing the accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT compared with histopathology for the detection of pelvic lymph node metastases in intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer found relatively low sensitivity [0.40 (95% CI: 0.34-0.46)] and high specificity [0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.97)] (13).
Given that other studies similarly report low (24.4%) or moderate (41.5%) sensitivity, 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT cannot replace lymph node dissection in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes (14,15).
M-staging
Distant metastases from prostate cancer are mostly localized in bones. The classic work-up to evaluate the presence of metastatic localizations in prostate cancer is CT and bone scan.
The proPSMA study assessed the impact of 68GaPSMA PET/CT on the diagnosis and management of patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer (16). 68GaPSMA PET/CT clearly improves the accuracy of diagnosis and the staging of the disease, given that PSMA PET-CT showed a 27% (95% CI 23-31) increase in accuracy compared to conventional imaging [92% (88-95) vs. 65% (60-69); P<0.0001].
68GaPSMA PET/CT seems also suited to detect rarer metastatic sites, for example brain metastasis as described in Chakraborty et al case report (17).
The use of 68GaPSMA PET/CT in the context of disease staging is thus well-established and recommended, especially for high-risk disease with metastases and lymph node involvement.
But would more accurate staging change our management strategies? And does it have an impact on the survival of our patients?
Management impacts
Using 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for initial staging could clearly have an impact on the therapeutic management due to changes in the staging of the disease.
Hofman et al reported a change of management in 28% vs. 15% (P=0.008) of patients for 68GaPSMA PET/CT and conventional imaging, respectively. Among its advantages, 68GaPSMA PET/CT involves less radiation exposure, produces fewer equivocal findings than conventional imaging and, finally, the cost is lower given that PSMA PET/CT is a single test in addition to being more accurate (16).
The PSMA dRT trial (NCT04457245), a phase 3 multicenter randomized trial, assessed the impact of 68GaPSMA PET/CT on patient selection, radiotherapy planning and improvement in patient outcomes (18).
Preliminary results, as presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology GU congress, showed a change between the pre-randomization radiotherapy (RT) plan and the delivered RT plan for 28% of patients in the control arm vs. 57% in the PSMA arm (P=0.002). Initial RT was replaced by systematic therapy and/or metastasis-directed RT in 3% vs. 17% (P=0.17), while dose prescription and/or target volume delineation was changed in 3% vs. 26% (P=0.001) of the control and PSMA arms respectively (19).
Calais et al reported upstaging by 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in 43% of the patients initially diagnosed with localized disease: 9.5% were M1 and 34% were N1, 16.5% had at least 1 positive lesion not covered by either the prostate consensus CTV or the pelvic LN consensus CTV while radiation field required a major change for 32% (20).
Likewise, in a prospective study of 197 patients undergoing scans for various non-classical clinical indications, Sonni et al reported that PSMA PET/CT led to a change in the assessment of disease stage in 69% of patients (38% upstaging vs. 30% downstaging) and a change in management for 57% (21).
The ORIOLE study, a phase 2 randomized study, assessed the efficacy of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in men with oligometastatic prostate cancer (22).
This study emphasized the importance of treating lesions detected by 18Ga-PSMA. Indeed, for patients with no untreated lesions median PFS was unreached, as opposed to 11.8 months for untreated lesions [HR 0.26 (95% CI: 0.09-0.76), P=0.006], while the proportion of new metastatic lesions at 180 days was reduced from 62.5 to 15.8%.
However, caution must be taken given the lack of available data concerning a potential improvement in patient outcomes and the risk of false positives (23,24).
68Ga-PSMA: a prognostic factor?
Many studies have examined a potential correlation between the clinical parameters of prostate cancer (Gleason score, PSA level, lymph nodes metastasis or distant metastasis) with the intensity of PSMA accumulation in the tumor (25-27). Patients with PSA >10 ng/ml, Gleason score >7, lymph node metastasis or distant metastasis had significantly higher SUVmax in the primary tumor than their counterparts, for each factor.
Amiel et al assessed the predictive value of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for surgical response in patients with prostate cancer, prior to radical prostatectomy (28). 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT found extraprostatic disease sites in 14.1% of the patients. Among patients with disease confined to the prostate, 82.9% achieved a surgical response, compared to 28.6% in males with extraprostatic disease identified with 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT (P<0.001). Extraprostatic disease identified with 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT is thus clearly a prognostic factor of poor surgical response (23).
Moreover, outcomes of patients with a positive 68-PSMA PET/CT but who would have been screen failures for the VISION trial was assessed in a multicenter retrospective analysis (29). These patients presented worse outcomes with respect to PSA response rate, PSA-progression free survival and overall survival than patients who were classified as eligible for the VISION trial. Moreover, PSMA average is a better prognosticator of overall survival than PSMAmax (HR: 0.959; P=0.047 vs. HR: 0.992; P=0.231), as reported by Seifert et al (30).
3. Monitoring after local treatment
Detecting local recurrence or distant metastases after biochemical recurrence
After local treatment, patients' follow-up is based on clinical examination and PSA levels (3,5,6). In case of biochemical recurrence, it is essential to distinguish between local recurrence and distant metastases, with a corresponding impact on the patient's management. Imaging techniques have a decisive role in this setting.
Most of the time a minor rise in PSA levels does not allow conventional imaging to detect local recurrence or distant metastasis. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT has demonstrated its superiority in detecting recurrences compared to standard of care and particularly in comparison with choline tracers (31). Because of the poor sensitivity of choline tracers at low PSA levels, Morigi et al compared the detection rates of 18F-fluoromethylcholine with those of 68Ga-PSMA following radical prostatectomy and/or radiation treatment in 38 men with rising PSA who were candidates for targeted therapy. Positive scan results were obtained in 26 patients (68%), of which 14 (54%) by 68Ga-PSMA alone, 11 (42%) by 68Ga-PSMA and 18F-fluoromethylcholine, while 18F-fluoromethylcholine alone produced only a false positive (32). At PSA levels of <0.5, 0.5-2 and >2 ng/ml, detection rates for 68Ga-PSMA vs. 18F-fluromethylcholine were respectively 50% vs. 12.5%, 69% vs. 31% and 86% vs. 57%. The detection rate with 68Ga-PSMA it thus significantly higher than with 18F-fluromethylcholine.
A meta-analysis by Hope et al assessed the accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for the detection of prostate cancer compared to histopathology. A total of 256 patients with biochemical recurrence were enrolled across 15 studies, of which 233 were reported as true positive lesions (33). The predictive positive value was 0.99 (95% CI 0.96-1.00). The detection rate for 68Ga-PSMA increased with the PSA levels from 0.63 (95% CI 0.55-0.70) with a PSA <2.0 ng/ml to 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.96) with a PSA >2.0 ng/ml.
Another study, a multicenter prospective clinical trial by McCarthy et al evaluating the diagnostic performances of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, focused on patients with biochemical recurrence after local treatment and bone scan and computed tomography (CT) showing no lesions or oligometastatic disease (34). Among patients with no lesions on CT and bone scan, 74% were found to have positive lesions on 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, with 57% oligometastatic disease. Among patients with oligometastatic disease on the CT and bone scan, 49% were confirmed as oligometastatic and 41% were upstaged to polymetastatic. No notable adverse were observed. This study thus demonstrates that 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT is not only safe, but highly accurate, with a positive predictive value of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.90) to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95), as confirmed by histopathology and the composite reference standard. Furthermore, a PSA drop of 50% or more in 80% of patients has been observed with PET-directed focal therapy (35). 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT is becoming the standard imaging modality for the management of patients with relapsed prostate cancer after local therapy.
However, the specificity of 68Ga-PSMA is not perfect and despite its ‘prostate specific’ naming, PSMA protein expression can be found in normal tissue (like ganglia of the sympathetic trunk) and in several benign or malignant tumors, leading to potential false positive (36,37).
Management impacts
68Ga-PSMA PET/CT has a clear impact on the management strategy for patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer.
Several studies, including a prospective survey of physicians, have already shown that information from 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT changes management in more than half of the patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer (38-40).
It has been established that this innovative imaging modality could benefit patients, but randomized prospective trials are needed to determine whether it can really improve outcomes.
More information on patient outcomes will hopefully become available in the near future from studies such as the ongoing randomized prospective phase 3 trial by Calais et al which aims to evaluate how PSMA PET/CT findings may affect RT planning and ultimately the success rate of salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer recurrence after prostatectomy (41).
4. A theranostic approach with 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy
177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy outcomes
When it disintegrates, 177-Lutetium produces β-radiation, used to induce cells death, and g radiations, used for scintigraphy. This principle can be applied to prostate cancer through PSMA.
The first case report on this innovative technology was published in 2015. The patient presented a metastatic prostate cancer with strong PSMA expression on his PET/CT (42). The patient's radiological response was significant and his PSA level decreased from 38.0 to 4.6 ng/ml. This case report encouraged clinical trials to investigate the potential as a treatment for prostate cancer.
Rahbar et al assessed efficacy and safety of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in a retrospective multicenter study with a cohort of 145 patients. Biochemical response, defined as a ≥50% decline in PSA, the primary endpoint of the study, was achieved in 45% of patients, most of whom (58%) after a single cycle. Only 24 grade 3-4 adverse events were reported, most commonly anemia, and no cases of therapy-related death (43).
Likewise, Heck et al evaluated the efficacy and safety of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in 100 patients treated with 177Lu-PSMA-617 as a compassionate protocol. Median clinical PFS of 4.1 months and median overall survival of 12.9 months were both extended for the subgroup of patients who achieved a ≥50% decline in PSA. Hematologic grade ¾ toxicities were observed in 19% of patients, but no other grade ¾ toxicities were noted (44).
These findings were confirmed by the LuPSMA trial, a single-arm, single-center, phase 2 trial: 57% of the patients treated with 177Lu-PSMA-617 achieved a PSA decline of at least 50% (45).
Moreover, the benefits of rechallenge with 177Lu-PSMA-617 after progression have been demonstrated in another study on long-term follow-up (46).
Two multicenter, open-label, randomized trials in particular support the use of 177Lu-PSMA as a therapy in advanced metastatic prostate cancer.
In the TheraP trial, as reported by Hofman et al, patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either 177Lu-PSMA-617 or cabazitaxel. Treatment with Lu-PSMA-617 resulted in a higher PSA response (66% vs. 44% by treatment received, P=0.0016), fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events (33% vs. 53%) and no deaths attributed to Lu-PSMA-617(47).
The efficacy of 177Lu-PSMA-617 compared with standard care (excluding chemotherapy, immunotherapy and radium-223) was assessed by Sartor et al in the VISION trial, the primary endpoints of which were progression-free survival (imaging-based) and overall survival. Median PFS was 8.7 months in the 177Lu-PSMA-617 arm (vs. 3.4 months, HR progression/death=0.40, P<0.001) while median overall survival was 15.3 months (vs. 11.3 months; HR death=0.62, P<0.001). A higher incidence of grade-3 adverse events was observed with 177Lu-PSMA-617 (52.7% vs. 38.0%), but did not affect quality of life according to assessments using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) (48).
Numerous studies to reveal the benefit of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in different scenarios are still under way.
The REALITY study, which also analyzed the efficacy and safety of 177Lu-PSMA in 254 elderly, heavily pretreated patients with late/end-stage disease, found a ≥50% decline in PSA, median PSA-PFS of 5.5 (95% CI 4.4-6.6) months and median OS of 14.5 (95% CI 11.5-17.5) months (49). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were anemia 8.3% (95% CI 5.5-12.3), fatigue 7.1% (95% CI 4.5-10.9) and thrombocytopenia 4.3% (95% CI 2.4-7.6), with no treatment-related deaths. In keeping with findings by Heck et al, early biochemical response again seems to be a significant prognostic factor (44).
The BULLSEYE trial is a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial that aims to prove the benefits of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in oligometastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (50).
177Lu-PSMA-617 appears set to take its place in the coming years as an effective, safe treatment for prostate cancer in earlier stages.
Patient selection and resistance mechanisms
68Ga-PSMA PET/CT parameters can assist in the selection of responder patients.
Erdogan et al studied the predictive value of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT parameters, SUVmax, PSMA TV, TL PSMA, before 177Lu-PSMA with respect to treatment response (51).
The AUC value for SUVmax was significant (AUC=0.677; P<0.001).
From a therapeutic point of view, Peters et al found that [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-PET can be used to predict the absorbed dose of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy in organs, and to a lesser extent in lesions, which could help to personalize treatment by maximizing doses without exceeding the threshold for at-risk organs like the kidneys or liver (52).
With these results in mind, heterogeneity of PSMA expression across metastases or within individual lesions could still be detrimental for 177Lu-PSMA efficacy. This issue was raised by Paschalis et al with heterogeneity detected between metastases and even within the tumour (53). They reported that 42% of castration-sensitive prostate cancer and 27% of mCRPC tissues sampled had no detectable membranous PSMA. Demonstrating the evolutivity of PSMA expression during the disease and influence by different treatments, Lückerath et al have published a preclinical study showing that androgen receptor blockade can increase PSMA expression (54). Based on the evidence of synergistic effects, the Enza-p trial, an ongoing randomized phase 2 trial, assesses the efficacy of the combination of enzalutamide and 177Lu-PSMA (55).
Mutational status seems to have an impact as well on cancer response to radioligand therapy. In addition to its usefulness as a prognostic factor for the development of distant metastases, progression free survival and overall survival in prostate cancer, p53 status could influence the response to 177Lu-PSMA (56). In a preclinical study, Stuparu et al reported that p53 loss seems to make prostate cancer resistant to radioligand therapy (57).
Likewise, tumors with defective DNA damage repair had higher mPSMA expression which could incite further investigations.
In the castration-resistant metastatic stage, small cell transformation is possible (58). In order to detect both components of the disease and its aggressiveness, it seems important to use 18F-FDG PET/CT and 68GaPSMA PET/CT. Parghane and Basu reported the usefulness of dual tracer 68GaPSMA PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in assessing this transformation (59).
Improving responses to 177Lu-PSMA therapy
By knowing and understanding the resistance mechanisms to 177Lu-PSMA therapy, we can find ways to improve patients' response to this treatment.
As mentioned previously, androgen receptor blockage can increase PSMA expression and increase the number of lesions visualized on 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT (60). The Enza-p trial results will provide more data on this subject.
Several ongoing trials are testing the benefit of associating 177Lu-PSMA with other therapies as radiation sensitizers: Olaparib for the LuPARP trial (NCT03874884), NOX66 for the LuPIN trial (ACTRN12618001073291), or immunotherapy in different trials like the PRINCE trial (NCT03658447) or the EVOLUTION trial (NCT05150236). The results of these studies have great potential to help personalize patients' care and improve the response to radioligand therapy, and in particular 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy.
5. New PSMA-associated radionuclides
The value of PSMA is due largely to its specificity to prostatic cells, but other radionuclides than 68-Gallium and 177-Lutetium are being examined for use in imaging and therapy.
Several 18F-labeled PSMA ligands seem promising in terms of diagnostic techniques.
A phase 3 prospective multicenter study by Schuster et al (SPOTLIGHT NCT04186845) assessing detection rate and positive predictive value for 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 PET in 389 patients with suspected prostate cancer recurrence found overall detection and patient-level correct detection rates of 83 and 56.8% respectively over a wide range of PSA levels (median 1.10 ng/ml, range 0.03-134.6). Although PPV, at 59.7% (95% CI 54.7-64.7), did not meet its prespecified threshold, this was attributed to the high proportion of conventional imaging in the composite Standard of Truth, whereas the threshold would have been reached if histopathology alone were taken as Standard of Truth. These findings thus encourage the use of 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 PET/CT in men with recurrent prostate cancer (61).
18F-DCFPyl has also been evaluated through different studies. The OSPREY trial assessed the accuracy of this radiotracer with PET/CT for detecting metastatic prostate cancer. It presented good specificity but a level of sensitivity that did not meet the prespecified endpoint. Nevertheless, the high positive predictive value suggests that 18F-DCFPyl could prove useful in staging high-risk prostate cancers or detecting metastatic recurrences (62).
Another phase 3 prospective multicenter study by Morris et al assessing 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT in patients with suspected biochemical recurrence, CONDOR, reported disease detection rates of 59.1-65.9% and correct localization rates of 84.8-87.0% among three independent readers. Findings obtained by means of 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT led to a change in management for 64% of patients. Only one grade-3 adverse event was observed, and no grade-4 events or deaths. These results thus confirm the usefulness of 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT to help detect and localize recurrent prostate cancer (63).
As a last example, 18F-PSMA-1007 has showed a significatively better overall correct detection rate than 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT (0.82 vs. 0.65 or 0.77 vs. 0.57 depending on whether undetermined findings were considered respectively as positive or negative for malignancy) leading to a more adequate management of prostate cancer with biochemical recurrence in a phase 3 prospective randomized multicenter study (64). Hoffmann et al showed comparable performance for 18F-PSMA-1007 and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer initial staging with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and accuracy of 62, 85, 92 and 67% respectively for 18F-PSMA-1007 and 54, 91, 93 and 66%% for 68Ga-PSMA (65).
In terms of therapeutic options, Terbium-161 has been tested as a radionuclide associated with PSMA for radioligand therapy. Müller et al compared 161Tb-PSMA to 177Lu-PSMA and showed superior in vitro and in vivo results with respect to tumor cell viability (66). Further studies will be needed to support a clinical use. This is true for 225Ac-PSMA-617 as well, which is currently undergoing evaluation in the AcTION trial, a phase 1 study of 225Ac-PSMA-617 in PSMA-positive prostate cancer with extensive skeletal metastases (NCT04597411).
6. Conclusion
Radiolabeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a specific radiotracer for prostate cancer. The superiority of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in comparison with standard imaging has been demonstrated in detecting metastatic recurrences for patients with biochemical relapse even with very low PSA levels. It also appears to be an excellent imaging modality for initial staging both for nodal lymph nodes and distant metastases in intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. In both cases, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT has implications for patients' management. However, its impact on overall survival has yet to be determined (Table I; Fig. 1).
On a therapeutic level, 177Lu-PSMA has proven its benefits for advanced metastatic prostate cancer after ADT and taxane-based chemotherapy with very few adverse events. It could, depending on the results of ongoing studies, take a place in earlier stage prostate cancer sometime in the close future. Many resistance mechanisms to 177Lu-PSMA therapy have not yet been elucidated but some solutions like androgen receptor blockage have already shown great potential in improving responses. New PSMA-associated radioligands are also being tested to enhance the therapeutic and diagnostic arsenal. In sum, radiolabeled PSMA undoubtedly has a promising future ahead of it.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Funding: No funding was received.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Authors' contributions
HS, DH, PC and CH contributed to the conception of the work; the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data; and approved the submitted version. Data authentication is not applicable. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
World Health Organization: Cancer Today. Gco.iarc.fr. 2022. International Agency for Research on Cancer. https://gco.iarc.fr/today/home. | |
Ghosh A, Wang X, Klein E and Heston WDW: Novel role of prostate-specific membrane antigen in suppressing prostate cancer invasiveness. Cancer Res. 65:727–731. 2005.PubMed/NCBI | |
EAU Guidelines. EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2022. ISBN 978-94-92671-16-5. | |
Trabulsi EJ, Rumble RB, Jadvar H, Hope T, Pomper M, Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Margolis DJ, Froemming A, et al: Optimum imaging strategies for advanced prostate cancer: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol. 38:1963–1996. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Parker C, Castro E, Fizazi K, Heidenreich A, Ost P, Procopio G, Tombal B and Gillessen S: ESMO Guidelines Committee. Electronic address: simpleclinicalguidelines@esmo.org. Prostate cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 31:1119–1134. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Lowrance WT, Breau RH, Chou R, Chapin BF, Crispino T, Dreicer R, Jarrard DF, Kibel AS, Morgan TM, Morgans AK, et al: Advanced prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline PART I. J Urol. 205:14–21. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG, Freeman A, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 389:815–822. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, van Basten JP, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Vreuls W, van Oort IM, Vergunst H, Kiemeney LA, Barentsz JO and Witjes JA: The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 190:1728–1734. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Kalapara AA, Nzenza T, Pan HYC, Ballok Z, Ramdave S, O'Sullivan R, Ryan A, Cherk M, Hofman MS, Konety BR, et al: Detection and localisation of primary prostate cancer using 68gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography compared with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and radical prostatectomy specimen pathology. BJU Int. 126:83–90. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Peng L, Li J, Meng C, Li J, You C, Tang D, Wei T, Xiong W and Li Y: Can 68Ga-prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography provide an accurate lymph node staging for patients with medium/high risk prostate cancer? A diagnostic meta-analysis. Radiat Oncol. 15(227)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Wu H, Xu T, Wang X, Yu YB, Fan ZY, Li DX, Luo L, Yang XC, Jiao W and Niu HT: Diagnostic performance of 68gallium labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for staging the prostate cancer with intermediate or high risk prior to radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Mens Health. 38:208–219. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Herlemann A, Wenter V, Kretschmer A, Thierfelder KM, Bartenstein P, Faber C, Gildehaus FJ, Stief CG, Gratzke C and Fendler WP: 68Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computed tomography provides accurate staging of lymph node regions prior to lymph node dissection in patients with prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 70:553–557. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Hope TA, Eiber M, Armstrong WR, Juarez R, Murthy V, Lawhn-Heath C, Behr SC, Zhang L, Barbato F, Ceci F, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for pelvic nodal metastasis detection prior to radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: A multicenter prospective phase 3 imaging trial. JAMA Oncol. 7:1635–1642. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Yaxley JW, Raveenthiran S, Nouhaud FX, Samartunga H, Yaxley AJ, Coughlin G, Delahunt B, Egevad L, McEwan L and Wong D: Outcomes of primary lymph node staging of intermediate and high risk prostate cancer with 68Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computerized tomography compared to histological correlation of pelvic lymph node pathology. J Urol. 201:815–820. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
van Kalmthout LWM, van Melick HHE, Lavalaye J, Meijer RP, Kooistra A, de Klerk JMH, Braat AJAT, Kaldeway HP, de Bruin PC, de Keizer B and Lam MGEH: Prospective validation of gallium-68 prostate specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for primary staging of prostate cancer. J Urol. 203:537–545. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Hofman MS, Lawrentschuk N, Francis RJ, Tang C, Vela I, Thomas P, Rutherford N, Martin JM, Frydenberg M, Shakher R, et al: Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): A prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet. 395:1208–1216. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Chakraborty PS, Kumar R, Tripathi M, Das CJ and Bal C: Detection of brain metastasis with 68Ga-labeled PSMA ligand PET/CT: A novel radiotracer for imaging of prostate carcinoma. Clin Nucl Med. 40:328–329. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Calais J, Zhu S, Hirmas N, Eiber M, Hadaschik B, Stuschke M, Herrmann K, Czernin J, Kishan AU, Nickols NG, et al: Phase 3 multicenter randomized trial of PSMA PET/CT prior to definitive radiation therapy for unfavorable intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer [PSMA dRT]: Study protocol. BMC Cancer. 21(512)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Calais J, Zhu S, Hirmas N, Eiber M, Hadaschik BA, Stuschke M, Herrmann K, Czernin J, Kishan AU, Nickols NG, et al: Phase III randomized trial of PSMA PET prior to definitive radiation therapy for unfavorable intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer [PSMA dRT]: Study protocol NCT04457245. J Clin Oncol. 39 (Suppl 6)(TPS172)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Calais J, Kishan AU, Cao M, Fendler WP, Eiber M, Herrmann K, Ceci F, Reiter RE, Rettig MB, Hegde JV, et al: Potential impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on the planning of definitive radiation therapy for prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 59:1714–1721. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Sonni I, Eiber M, Fendler WP, Alano RM, Vangala SS, Kishan AU, Nickols N, Rettig MB, Reiter RE, Czernin J and Calais J: Impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on staging and management of prostate cancer patients in various clinical settings: A prospective single-center study. J Nucl Med. 61:1153–1160. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Phillips R, Shi WY, Deek M, Radwan N, Lim SJ, Antonarakis ES, Rowe SP, Ross AE, Gorin MA, Deville C, et al: Outcomes of observation vs. stereotactic ablative radiation for oligometastatic prostate cancer: The ORIOLE phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 6:650–659. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I, Souvatzoglou M, Haller B, Weirich G, Wester HJ, Heck M, Kübler H, Beer AJ, et al: Diagnostic efficacy of (68)gallium-PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 195:1436–1443. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Zarbiv Y, Peerless Y, Wygoda M, Orevi M, Meir K, Gofrit ON, Yutkin V and Frank S: Real-world Israeli single institution experience with PET-PSMA for staging of patients with clinically staged localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 4(e1386)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Onal C, Torun N, Oymak E, Guler OC, Reyhan M and Yapar AF: Retrospective correlation of 68ga-psma uptake with clinical parameters in prostate cancer patients undergoing definitive radiotherapy. Ann Nucl Med. 34:388–396. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Uprimny C, Kroiss AS, Decristoforo C, Fritz J, von Guggenberg E, Kendler D, Scarpa L, di Santo G, Roig LG, Maffey-Steffan J, et al: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in primary staging of prostate cancer: PSA and gleason score predict the intensity of tracer accumulation in the primary tumour. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 44:941–949. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Ergül N, Yilmaz Güneş B, Yücetaş U, Toktaş MG and Çermik TF: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in newly diagnosed prostate adenocarcinoma. Clin Nucl Med. 43:e422–e427. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Amiel T, Würnschimmel C, Heck M, Horn T, Nguyen N, Budäus L, Knipper S, Wenzel M, Rauscher I, Eiber M, et al: Regional lymph node metastasis on prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography correlates with decreased biochemical recurrence-free and therapy-free survival after radical prostatectomy: A retrospective single-center single-arm observational study. J Urol. 205:1663–1670. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Hotta M, Gafita A, Czernin J and Calais J: Outcome of patients with PSMA PET/CT screen failure by VISION criteria and treated with 177Lu-PSMA therapy: A multicenter retrospective analysis. J Nucl Med. 63:1484–1488. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Seifert R, Seitzer K, Herrmann K, Kessel K, Schäfers M, Kleesiek J, Weckesser M, Boegemann M and Rahbar K: Analysis of PSMA expression and outcome in patients with advanced prostate cancer receiving 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy. Theranostics. 10:7812–7820. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Afshar-Oromieh A, Zechmann CM, Malcher A, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Linhart HG, Holland-Letz T, Hadaschik BA, Giesel FL, Debus J and Haberkorn U: Comparison of PET imaging with a (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and (18)F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 41:11–20. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Morigi JJ, Stricker PD, van Leeuwen PJ, Tang R, Ho B, Nguyen Q, Hruby G, Fogarty G, Jagavkar R, Kneebone A, et al: Prospective comparison of 18F-fluoromethylcholine versus 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer patients who have rising PSA after curative treatment and are being considered for targeted therapy. J Nucl Med. 56:1185–1190. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Hope TA, Goodman JZ, Allen IE, Calais J, Fendler WP and Carroll PR: Metaanalysis of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET accuracy for the detection of prostate cancer validated by histopathology. J Nucl Med. 60:786–793. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
McCarthy M, Francis R, Tang C, Watts J and Campbell A: A multicenter prospective clinical trial of 68gallium PSMA HBED-CC PET-CT restaging in biochemically relapsed prostate carcinoma: Oligometastatic rate and distribution compared with standard imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 104:801–808. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Fendler WP, Calais J, Eiber M, Flavell RR, Mishoe A, Feng FY, Nguyen HG, Reiter RE, Rettig MB, Okamoto S, et al: Assessment of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET accuracy in localizing recurrent prostate cancer: A prospective single-arm clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 5:856–863. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Hofman MS, Hicks RJ, Maurer T and Eiber M: Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET: Clinical utility in prostate cancer, normal patterns, pearls, and pitfalls. Radiographics. 38:200–217. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Rischpler C, Beck TI, Okamoto S, Schlitter AM, Knorr K, Schwaiger M, Gschwend J, Maurer T, Meyer PT and Eiber M: 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC uptake in cervical, celiac, and sacral ganglia as an important pitfall in prostate cancer PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 59:1406–1411. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Fendler WP, Ferdinandus J, Czernin J, Eiber M, Flavell RR, Behr SC, Wu IK, Lawhn-Heath C, Pampaloni MH, Reiter RE, et al: Impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET on the management of recurrent prostate cancer in a prospective single-arm clinical trial. J Nucl Med. 61:1793–1799. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Calais J, Fendler WP, Eiber M, Gartmann J, Chu FI, Nickols NG, Reiter RE, Rettig MB, Marks LS, Ahlering TE, et al: Impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on the management of prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence. J Nucl Med. 59:434–441. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Rousseau C, Le Thiec M, Ferrer L, Rusu D, Rauscher A, Maucherat B, Frindel M, Baumgartner P, Fleury V, Denis A, et al: Preliminary results of a 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT prospective study in prostate cancer patients with occult recurrence: Diagnostic performance and impact on therapeutic decision-making. Prostate. 79:1514–1522. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Calais J, Czernin J, Fendler WP, Elashoff D and Nickols NG: Randomized prospective phase III trial of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT molecular imaging for prostate cancer salvage radiotherapy planning [PSMA-SRT]. BMC Cancer. 19(18)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Kratochwil C, Giesel FL, Eder M, Afshar-Oromieh A, Benešová M, Mier W, Kopka K and Haberkorn U: [77Lu] Lutetium-labelled PSMA ligand-induced remission in a patient with metastatic prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 42:987–988. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Rahbar K, Ahmadzadehfar H, Kratochwil C, Haberkorn U, Schäfers M, Essler M, Baum RP, Kulkarni HR, Schmidt M, Drzezga A, et al: German multicenter study investigating 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy in advanced prostate cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 58:85–90. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Heck MM, Tauber R, Schwaiger S, Retz M, D'Alessandria C, Maurer T, Gafita A, Wester HJ, Gschwend JE, Weber WA, et al: Treatment outcome, toxicity, and predictive factors for radioligand therapy with 177Lu-PSMA-I&T in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 75:920–926. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Hofman MS, Violet J, Hicks RJ, Ferdinandus J, Thang SP, Akhurst T, Iravani A, Kong G, Ravi Kumar A, Murphy DG, et al: [177Lu]-PSMA-617 radionuclide treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (LuPSMA trial): A single-centre, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 19:825–833. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Violet J, Sandhu S, Iravani A, Ferdinandus J, Thang SP, Kong G, Kumar AR, Akhurst T, Pattison DA, Beaulieu A, et al: Long-term follow-up and outcomes of retreatment in an expanded 50-patient single-center phase II prospective trial of 177Lu-PSMA-617 theranostics in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 61:857–865. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Hofman MS, Emmett L, Sandhu S, Iravani A, Joshua AM, Goh JC, Pattison DA, Tan TH, Kirkwood ID, Ng S, et al: [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TheraP): A randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 397:797–804. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Sartor O, de Bono J, Chi KN, Fizazi K, Herrmann K, Rahbar K, Tagawa ST, Nordquist LT, Vaishampayan N, El-Haddad G, et al: Lutetium-177-PSMA-617 for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 385:1091–1103. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Khreish F, Ghazal Z, Marlowe RJ, Rosar F, Sabet A, Maus S, Linxweiler J, Bartholomä M and Ezziddin S: 177 Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Initial 254-patient results from a prospective registry (REALITY study). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 49:1075–1085. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Privé BM, Janssen MJR, van Oort IM, Muselaers CHJ, Jonker MA, van Gemert WA, de Groot M, Westdorp H, Mehra N, Verzijlbergen JF, et al: Update to a randomized controlled trial of lutetium-177-PSMA in oligo-metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: The BULLSEYE trial. Trials. 22(768)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Erdogan M, Sengul SS, Cetin B, Avcı M, Yagci S, Ozkoç I, Barikan DE and Yildiz M: The role of Ga68 PSMA PET/CT imaging in Lu177 PSMA treatment planning in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 36:562–569. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Peters SMB, Hofferber R, Privé BM, de Bakker M, Gotthardt M, Janssen M, de Lange F, Muselaers CHJ, Mehra N, Witjes JA, et al: [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging as a predictor for absorbed doses in organs at risk and small lesions in [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 treatment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 49:1101–1112. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Paschalis A, Sheehan B, Riisnaes R, Rodrigues DN, Gurel B, Bertan C, Ferreira A, Lambros MBK, Seed G, Yuan W, et al: Prostate-specific membrane antigen heterogeneity and DNA repair defects in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 76:469–478. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Lückerath K, Wei L, Fendler WP, Evans-Axelsson S, Stuparu AD, Slavik R, Mona CE, Calais J, Rettig M, Reiter RE, et al: Preclinical evaluation of PSMA expression in response to androgen receptor blockade for theranostics in prostate cancer. EJNMMI Res. 8(96)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Rosar F, Dewes S, Ries M, Schaefer A, Khreish F, Maus S, Bohnenberger H, Linxweiler J, Bartholomä M, Ohlmann C and Ezziddin S: New insights in the paradigm of upregulation of tumoral PSMA expression by androgen receptor blockade: Enzalutamide induces PSMA upregulation in castration-resistant prostate cancer even in patients having previously progressed on enzalutamide. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 47:687–694. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Grignon DJ, Caplan R, Sarkar FH, Lawton CA, Hammond EH, Pilepich MV, Forman JD, Mesic J, Fu KK, Abrams RA, et al: p53 status and prognosis of locally advanced prostatic adenocarcinoma: A study based on RTOG 8610. J Natl Cancer Inst. 89:158–165. 1997.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Stuparu AD, Capri JR, Meyer CAL, Le TM, Evans-Axelsson SL, Current K, Lennox M, Mona CE, Fendler WP, Calais J, et al: Mechanisms of resistance to prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted radioligand therapy in a mouse model of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 62:989–995. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Nadal R, Schweizer M, Kryvenko ON, Epstein JI and Eisenberger MA: Small cell carcinoma of the prostate. Nat Rev Urol. 11:213–219. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Parghane R and Basu S: Small cell transformation of metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed by dual-tracer PET/CT (68Ga-PSMA and 18F-FDG): Potential clinical utility in therapeutic decision making and treatment monitoring. J Nucl Med Technol. 47:85–87. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Hope TA, Truillet C, Ehman EC, Afshar-Oromieh A, Aggarwal R, Ryan CJ, Carroll PR, Small EJ and Evans MJ: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging of response to androgen receptor inhibition: First human experience. J Nucl Med. 58:81–84. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Schuster DM: SPOTLIGHT Study Group. Detection rate of 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 PET in patients with suspected prostate cancer recurrence: Results from a phase 3, prospective, multicenter study (SPOTLIGHT). J Clin Oncol. 40 (Suppl)(S9)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Pienta KJ, Gorin MA, Rowe SP, Carroll PR, Pouliot F, Probst S, Saperstein L, Preston MA, Alva AS, Patnaik A, et al: A phase 2/3 prospective multicenter study of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate specific membrane antigen PET/CT with 18F-DCFPyL in prostate cancer patients (OSPREY). J Urol. 206:52–61. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Morris MJ, Rowe SP, Gorin MA, Saperstein L, Pouliot F, Josephson D, Wong JYC, Pantel AR, Cho SY, Gage KL, et al: Diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT in men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer: Results from the CONDOR phase III, multicenter study. Clin Cancer Res. 27:3674–3682. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Olivier P, Giraudet AL, Skanjeti A, Merlin C, Weinmann P, Rudolph I, Hoepping A and Gauthé M: Phase III study of 18F-PSMA-1007 versus 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT for localization of prostate cancer biochemical recurrence: A prospective, randomized, cross-over, multicenter study. J Nucl Med: Nov 23, 2022 (Epub ahead of print). | |
Hoffmann MA, Müller-Hübenthal J, Rosar F, Fischer N, von Eyben FE, Buchholz HG, Wieler HJ and Schreckenberger M: Primary staging of prostate cancer patients with [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT compared with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT. J Clin Med. 11(5064)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Müller C, Umbricht CA, Gracheva N, Tschan VJ, Pellegrini G, Bernhardt P, Zeevaart JR, Köster U, Schibli R and van der Meulen NP: Terbium-161 for PSMA-targeted radionuclide therapy of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 46:1919–1930. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar |