Can PSMA PET improve the primary diagnosis of prostate cancer?

Prostate cancer remains one of the leader causes of cancer-related deaths in men worldwide. Currently, men receive a blood test and a prostate exam to determine if they need further imaging to investigate prostate cancer. I appropriate they receive prostate imaging. If the prostate imaging is suspicious then they will proceed to have a biopsy. Currently the biopsy and the imaging are not that accurate. Fortunately, there is new imaging technologies that is more accurate. In this thesis I will evaluate how accurate this new technology is and how it can be best applied

A Systematic Review of the Variability in Performing and Reporting Intraprostatic Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Primary Staging Studies

Context: Prostate cancer (PCa) remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths in men worldwide. Men at risk are typically offered multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and, if suspicious, a targeted biopsy. However, false-negative rates of magnetic resonance imaging are consistently 18%; therefore, there is growing interest in improving the diagnostic performance of imaging through novel technologies. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) is being utilised for PCa staging and, more recently, for intraprostatic tumour localisation. However, significant variability has been observed in how PSMA PET is performed and reported. Objective: In this review, we aim to evaluate how pervasive this variability is in trials investigating the performance of PSMA PET in primary PCa workup. Evidence acquisition: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, we performed an optimal search in five different databases. After removing duplicates, 65 studies were included in our review. Evidence synthesis: Studies dated back as early as 2016, with numerous different source countries. There was variation in the reference standard for PSMA PET, with some using biopsy specimens or surgical specimens, and in some cases, a combination of the two. Similar inconsistencies were noted when studies selected histological definitions of clinically significant PCa, while some omitted their definition altogether. The most significant variations in performing PSMA PET were the radiotracer type, dose, acquisition time after injection, and the PET camera being utilised. Substantial variation in the reporting of PSMA PET was noted, with no consistency in defining what constitutes a positive intraprostatic lesion. Across 65 studies, four different definitions were used. Conclusions: This systematic review has highlighted considerable variation in obtaining and performing a PSMA PET study in the context of primary PCa diagnosis. Given the discrepancy in how PSMA PET was performed and reported, it questions the homogony of studies from centre to centre. Standardisation of PSMA PET is required for this to become a consistently useful and reproducible modality in the diagnosis of PCa. Patient summary: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) is being utilised for staging and localisation of prostate cancer (PCa); however, there is significant variability in performing and reporting PSMA PET. Standardisation of PSMA PET is required for results to be consistently useful and reproducible for the diagnosis of PCa

A Novel Risk Calculator Incorporating Clinical Parameters, Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification Before Transperineal Prostate Biopsy

Background: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can detect multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-invisible prostate tumours and improve the sensitivity of detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in comparison to mpMRI alone. Numerous risk calculators have been validated as tools for stratification of men at risk of being diagnosed with clinically significant (cs)PCa. Objective: To develop a novel risk calculator using clinical parameters and imaging parameters from mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT in a cohort of patients undergoing mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT before biopsy. Design, setting, and participants: A total of 291 men from the PRIMARY prospective trial underwent mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT before transperineal prostate biopsy with sampling of systematic and targeted cores. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Novel risk calculators were developed using multivariable logistic regression analysis to predict detection of overall PCa (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group [GG] ≥1) and csPCa (GG ≥2). The risk calculators were then compared with the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator incorporating mpMRI (ERSPC-MRI). Resampling methods were used to evaluate the discrimination and calibration of the risk calculators and to perform decision curve analysis. Results and limitations: Age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, and mpMRI Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System scores were included in the MRI risk calculator, resulting in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values of 0.791 for overall PCa (GG ≥1) and 0.812 for csPCa (GG ≥2). Addition of the maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) on PSMA PET/CT for the prostate lesion, and of SUVmax for the mpMRI lesions for the MRI-PSMA risk calculator resulted in AUCs of 0.831 for overall PCa and 0.876 for csPCa (≥ISUP2).The ERSPC-MRI risk calculator had AUCs of 0.758 (p = 0.02) for overall PCa and 0.805 (p = 0.001) for csPCa. Both the MRI and MRI-PSMA risk calculators were superior to the ERSPC-MRI for both overall PCa and csPCa. Conclusions: These novel risk calculators incorporate clinical and radiological parameters for stratification of men at risk of csPCa. The risk calculator including PSMA PET/CT data is superior to a calculator incorporating mpMRI data alone. Patient summary: We evaluated a new risk calculator that uses clinical information and results from two types of scan to predict the risk of clinically significant prostate cancer on prostate biopsy. This risk model can guide patients and clinicians in shared decision-making and may help in avoiding unnecessary prostate biopsies