PSMA PET for the Evaluation of Liver Metastases in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

Background: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of PSMA-PET compared to conventional imaging/liver biopsy in the detection of liver metastases in CRPC patients. Moreover, we evaluated a PSMA-PET/CT-based radiomic model able to identify liver metastases. Methods: Multicenter retrospective study en...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancers 2022-11, Vol.14 (22), p.5680
Hauptverfasser: Mattoni, Susanna, Farolfi, Andrea, Formaggio, Fabio, Bruno, Gabriel, Caroli, Paola, Cerci, Juliano Julio, Eiber, Matthias, Fendler, Wolfgang Peter, Golfieri, Rita, Herrmann, Ken, Matteucci, Federica, Mosconi, Cristina, Paolani, Giulia, Santoro, Miriam, Strigari, Lidia, Nanni, Cristina, Castellucci, Paolo, Fanti, Stefano
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of PSMA-PET compared to conventional imaging/liver biopsy in the detection of liver metastases in CRPC patients. Moreover, we evaluated a PSMA-PET/CT-based radiomic model able to identify liver metastases. Methods: Multicenter retrospective study enrolling patients with the following inclusion criteria: (a) proven CRPC patients, (b) PSMA-PET and conventional imaging/liver biopsy performed in a 6 months timeframe, (c) no therapy changes between PSMA-PET and conventional imaging/liver biopsy. PSMA-PET sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy for liver metastases were calculated. After the extraction of radiomic features, a prediction model for liver metastases identification was developed. Results: Sixty CRPC patients were enrolled. Within 6 months before or after PSMA-PET, conventional imaging and liver biopsy identified 24/60 (40%) patients with liver metastases. PSMA-PET sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for liver metastases were 0.58, 0.92, 0.82, 0.77, and 0.78, respectively. Either number of liver metastases and the maximum lesion diameter were significantly associated with the presence of a positive PSMA-PET (p < 0.05). On multivariate regression analysis, the radiomic feature-based model combining sphericity, and the moment of inverse difference (Idm), had an AUC of 0.807 (95% CI:0.686-0.920). Conclusion: For liver metastases assessment, [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11-PET demonstrated moderate sensitivity while high specificity, PPV, and inter-reader agreement compared to conventional imaging/liver biopsy in CRPC patients.
ISSN:2072-6694
2072-6694
DOI:10.3390/cancers14225680