Diagnostic performance of <sup>18</sup>F‑DCFPyL PET vs. <sup>68</sup>Ga‑PSMA PET/CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer: A systemic review and meta‑analysis

Jiang,Zhibing; Guo,Jinjing; Hu,Liang; Yang,Siyu; Meng,Bin; Tang,Qun

doi:10.3892/ol.2024.14321

Diagnostic performance of ¹⁸F‑DCFPyL PET vs. ⁶⁸Ga‑PSMA PET/CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer: A systemic review and meta‑analysis

Authors:
- Zhibing Jiang
- Jinjing Guo
- Liang Hu
- Siyu Yang
- Bin Meng
- Qun Tang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Clinical Medicine, Medical College, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, Hunan 410208, P.R. China
Published online on: February 29, 2024 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2024.14321
Article Number: 188
Copyright: © Jiang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

In this systematic review and meta‑analysis, the diagnostic performance of ⁶⁸Ga‑prostate‑specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT was compared with that of ¹⁸F‑DCFPyL PET for patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). Up to September 2023, the PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases were thoroughly searched for relevant papers. Studies examining the diagnostic performance of ¹⁸F‑DCFPyL PET and ⁶⁸Ga‑PSMA PET/CT in patients with suspected PCa were included in the present review. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Performance Studies‑2 tool was used to rate the diagnostic performance of each study. The diagnostic performance of ¹⁸F‑DCFPyL PET and ⁶⁸Ga‑PSMA PET/CT for primary PCa was examined by 13 studies included, comprising 1,178 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ¹⁸F‑DCFPyL PET were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85‑0.96) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.08‑0.96), respectively. For ⁶⁸Ga‑PSMA PET/CT, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.88‑0.99) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57‑0.82), respectively. ¹⁸F‑DCFPyL PET and ⁶⁸Ga‑PSMA PET/CT both had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89‑0.94). In addition, the Fagan nomogram revealed that the post‑test probabilities for ¹⁸F‑DCFPyL PET and ⁶⁸Ga‑PSMA PET/CT could rise to 69 and 77% when the pre‑test probability was set at 50%. In conclusion, a comparable diagnostic performance for patients with suspected PCa was determined for ¹⁸F‑DCFPyL PET and ⁶⁸Ga‑PSMA PET/CT. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that the findings of the present meta‑analysis come from investigations with modest sample sizes. Therefore, more extensive research is required to obtain more solid data.

View Figures

View References

1	Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA and Jemal A: Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 68:394–424. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Descotes JL: Diagnosis of prostate cancer. Asian J Urol. 6:129–136. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Lomas DJ and Ahmed HU: All change in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 17:372–381. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Stefanova V, Buckley R, Flax S, Spevack L, Hajek D, Tunis A, Lai E and Loblaw A; Collaborators: Transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia: Experience with 1,287 patients. prostate cancer detection rate, complications and patient tolerability. J Urol. 201:1121–1126. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Liss MA, Ehdaie B, Loeb S, Meng MV, Raman JD, Spears V and Stroup SP: An update of the American urological association white paper on the prevention and treatment of the more common complications related to prostate biopsy. J Urol. 198:329–334. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Ghai S and Haider MA: Multiparametric-MRI in diagnosis of prostate cancer. Indian J Urol. 31:194–201. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, Tempany CM, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Margolis DJ, et al: Prostate Imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 Update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 76:340–351. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Laudicella R, Rüschoff JH, Ferraro DA, Brada MD, Hausmann D, Mebert I, Maurer A, Hermanns T, Eberli D, Rupp NJ and Burger IA: Infiltrative growth pattern of prostate cancer is associated with lower uptake on PSMA PET and reduced diffusion restriction on mpMRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 49:3917–3928. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Rüschoff JH, Ferraro DA, Muehlematter UJ, Laudicella R, Hermanns T, Rodewald AK, Moch H, Eberli D, Burger IA and Rupp NJ: What's behind ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 uptake in primary prostate cancer PET? Investigation of histopathological parameters and immunohistochemical PSMA expression patterns. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 48:4042–4053. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Wright GL Jr, Haley C, Beckett ML and Schellhammer PF: Expression of prostate-specific membrane antigen in normal, benign, and malignant prostate tissues. Urol Oncol. 1:18–28. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Silver DA, Pellicer I, Fair WR, Heston WD and Cordon-Cardo C: Prostate-specific membrane antigen expression in normal and malignant human tissues. Clin Cancer Res. 3:81–85. 1997.PubMed/NCBI
12	Ross JS, Sheehan CE, Fisher HA, Kaufman RP Jr, Kaur P, Gray K, Webb I, Gray GS, Mosher R and Kallakury BV: Correlation of primary tumor prostate-specific membrane antigen expression with disease recurrence in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 9:6357–6362. 2003.PubMed/NCBI
13	Evangelista L, Maurer T, van der Poel H, Alongi F, Kunikowska J, Laudicella R, Fanti S and Hofman MS: [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-PSMA Versus [¹⁸F]PSMA positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the staging of primary and recurrent prostate cancer. A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol Oncol. 5:273–282. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Koerber SA, Utzinger MT, Kratochwil C, Kesch C, Haefner MF, Katayama S, Mier W, Iagaru AH, Herfarth K, Haberkorn U, et al: ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in newly diagnosed carcinoma of the prostate: Correlation of intraprostatic PSMA uptake with several clinical parameters. J Nucl Med. 58:1943–1948. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Rowe SP, Macura KJ, Mena E, Blackford AL, Nadal R, Antonarakis ES, Eisenberger M, Carducci M, Fan H, Dannals RF, et al: PSMA-based [(18)F]DCFPyL PET/CT is superior to conventional imaging for lesion detection in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 18:411–419. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Rowe SP, Mana-Ay M, Javadi MS, Szabo Z, Leal JP, Pomper MG, Pienta KJ, Ross AE and Gorin MA: PSMA-based detection of prostate cancer bone lesions with ¹⁸F-DCFPyL PET/CT: A sensitive alternative to (99m)Tc-MDP bone scan and Na¹⁸F PET/CT? Clin Genitourin Cancer. 14:e115–e118. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, et al: The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 372:n712021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA and Bossuyt PM; QUADAS-2 Group, : QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 155:529–536. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM and Zwinderman AH: Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 58:982–990. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Moses LE, Shapiro D and Littenberg B: Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: Data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 12:1293–1316. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	DeLong ER, DeLong DM and Clarke-Pearson DL: Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 44:837–845. 1988. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Hanley JA and McNeil BJ: The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 143:29–36. 1982. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Lin M, Li YR, Lan QW, Long LJ, Liu JQ, Chen YW, Cao XJ, Wu GY, Li YP and Guo XG: Evaluation of GeneXpert EV assay for the rapid diagnosis of enteroviral meningitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 21:252022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Bodar YJL, Jansen BHE, van der Voorn JP, Zwezerijnen GJC, Meijer D, Nieuwenhuijzen JA, Boellaard R, Hendrikse NH, Hoekstra OS, van Moorselaar RJA, et al: Detection of prostate cancer with ¹⁸F-DCFPyL PET/CT compared to final histopathology of radical prostatectomy specimens: Is PSMA-targeted biopsy feasible? The DeTeCT trial. World J Urol. 39:2439–2446. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Metser U, Ortega C, Perlis N, Lechtman E, Berlin A, Anconina R, Eshet Y, Chan R, Veit-Haibach P, van der Kwast TH, et al: Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer with ¹⁸F-DCFPyL PET/multiparametric MR. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 48:3702–3711. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Zhang T, Yang S, Lin L, Wang S, Xia D, Chen D, Wang G, Zhao K and Su X: Role of ¹⁸F-DCFPyL PET/CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Hell J Nucl Med. 25:11–18. 2022.PubMed/NCBI
27	Liu Y, Dong Y, Liu J, Zhang X, Lin M and Xu B: Comparison between ¹⁸ F-DCFPyL PET and MRI for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer. Prostate. 81:1329–1336. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Parathithasan N, Perry E, Taubman K, Hegarty J, Talwar A, Wong LM and Sutherland T: 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. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 66:927–935. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Hoffmann MA, Miederer M, Wieler HJ, Ruf C, Jakobs FM and Schreckenberger M: Diagnostic performance of ⁶⁸Gallium-PSMA-11 PET/CT to detect significant prostate cancer and comparison with ¹⁸FEC PET/CT. Oncotarget. 8:111073–111083. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Lopci E, Saita A, Lazzeri M, Lughezzani G, Colombo P, Buffi NM, Hurle R, Marzo K, Peschechera R, Benetti A, et al: ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for primary diagnosis of prostate cancer in men with contraindications to or negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: A prospective observational study. J Urol. 200:95–103. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Sasikumar A, Joy A, Pillai AMR, Oommen KE, Somarajan S, Raman VK, Thomas R and Dinesh D: Gallium 68-PSMA PET/CT for lesion characterization in suspected cases of prostate carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun. 39:1013–1021. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Kumar N, Yadav S, Kumar S, Saurav K, Prasad V and Vasudeva P: Comparison of percentage free PSA, MRI and GaPSMA PET scan for diagnosing cancer prostate in men with PSA between 4 and 20 ng/ml. Indian J Urol. 35:202–207. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Zhang J, Shao S, Wu P, Liu D, Yang B, Han D, Li Y, Lin X, Song W, Cao M, et al: Diagnostic performance of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET/CT in the detection of prostate cancer prior to initial biopsy: Comparison with cancer-predicting nomograms. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 46:908–920. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
34	Liu C, Liu T, Zhang Z, Zhang N, Du P, Yang Y, Liu Y, Yu W, Li N, Gorin MA, et al: ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET/CT combined with PET/ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy can diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer in men with previous negative biopsy results. J Nucl Med. 61:1314–1319. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Lopci E, Lughezzani G, Castello A, Saita A, Colombo P, Hurle R, Peschechera R, Benetti A, Zandegiacomo S, Pasini L, et al: Prospective evaluation of ⁶⁸Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography/computed tomography in primary prostate cancer diagnosis. Eur Urol Focus. 7:764–771. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
36	Jiao J, Kang F, Zhang J, Quan Z, Wen W, Zhao X, Ma S, Wu P, Yang F, Guo W, et al: Establishment and prospective validation of an SUV_max cutoff value to discriminate clinically significant prostate cancer from benign prostate diseases in patients with suspected prostate cancer by ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET/CT: A real-world study. Theranostics. 11:8396–8411. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
37	Cooperberg MR, Broering JM and Carroll PR: Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 28:1117–1123. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
38	Esserman LJ, Thompson IM Jr and Reid B: Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: An opportunity for improvement. JAMA. 310:797–798. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
39	Matoso A and Epstein JI: Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings. Histopathology. 74:135–145. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
40	Heidenreich A, Rieke M, Mahjoub S and Pfister D: Management of positive lymph nodes following radical prostatectomy. Arch Esp Urol. 72:182–191. 2019.PubMed/NCBI
41	Van Kalmthout L, Wondergem M, Jansen B, et al: Comparison of 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-DCFPyL in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 46:S3692019.PubMed/NCBI
42	Ferreira G, Iravani A, Hofman MS and Hicks RJ: Intra-individual comparison of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 and ¹⁸F-DCFPyL normal-organ biodistribution. Cancer Imaging. 19:232019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
43	van der Sar ECA, Keusters WR, van Kalmthout LWM, Braat AJAT, de Keizer B, Frederix GWJ, Kooistra A, Lavalaye J, Lam MGEH and van Melick HHE: Cost-effectiveness of the implementation of [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT at initial prostate cancer staging. Insights Imaging. 13:1322022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
44	Dietlein M, Kobe C, Kuhnert G, Stockter S, Fischer T, Schomäcker K, Schmidt M, Dietlein F, Zlatopolskiy BD, Krapf P, et al: Comparison of [(18)F]DCFPyL and [(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC for PSMA-PET imaging in patients with relapsed prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 17:575–584. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
45	Ertürk SA, Şalk İ, Yücel B, Ulaş Babacan Ö and Hasbek Z: The relationship between the SUVmax value obtained in Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT and lactate dehydrogenase and alkaline phosphatase in prostate cancer. Arch Esp Urol. 75:552–558. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI