What's behind Ga-68-PSMA-11 uptake in primary prostate cancer PET? Investigation of histopathological parameters and immunohistochemical PSMA expression patterns
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
47
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2021
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
SPRINGER
Autores
RUSCHOFF, Jan H.
MUEHLEMATTER, Urs J.
LAUDICELLA, Riccardo
HERMANNS, Thomas
RODEWALD, Ann-Katrin
MOCH, Holger
EBERLI, Daniel
BURGER, Irene A.
RUPP, Niels J.
Citação
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, v.48, n.12, p.4042-4053, 2021
Resumo
Purpose Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA-) PET has become a promising tool in staging and restaging of prostate carcinoma (PCa). However, specific primary tumour features might impact accuracy of PSMA-PET for PCa detection. We investigated histopathological parameters and immunohistochemical PSMA expression patterns on radical prostatectomy (RPE) specimens and correlated them to the corresponding Ga-68-PSMA-11-PET examinations. Methods RPE specimens of 62 patients with preoperative Ga-68-PSMA-11-PET between 2016 and 2018 were analysed. WHO/ISUP grade groups, growth pattern (expansive vs. infiltrative), tumour area and diameter as well as immunohistochemical PSMA heterogeneity, intensity and negative tumour area (PSMA(%neg)) were correlated with spatially corresponding SUVmax on Ga-68-PSMA-11-PET in a multidisciplinary analysis. Results All tumours showed medium to strong membranous (2-3 +) and weak to strong cytoplasmic (1-3 +) PSMA expression. Heterogeneously expressed PSMA was found in 38 cases (61%). Twenty-five cases (40%) showed at least 5% and up to 80% PSMA(%neg). PSMA(%neg), infiltrative growth pattern, smaller tumour area and diameter and WHO/ISUP grade group 2 significantly correlated with lower SUVmax values. A ROC curve analysis revealed 20% PSMA(%neg) as an optimal cutoff with the highest sensitivity and specificity (89% and 86%, AUC 0.923) for a negative PSMA-PET scan. A multiple logistic regression model revealed tumoural PSMA(%neg) (p < 0.01, OR = 9.629) and growth pattern (p = 0.0497, OR = 306.537) as significant predictors for a negative PSMA-PET scan. Conclusions We describe PSMA(%neg), infiltrative growth pattern, smaller tumour size and WHO/ISUP grade group 2 as parameters associated with a lower Ga-68-PSMA-11 uptake in prostate cancer. These findings can serve as fundament for future biopsy-based biomarker development to enable an individualized, tumour-adapted imaging approach.
Palavras-chave
Prostatic neoplasms, Immunohistochemistry, Glutamate carboxypeptidase II, Positron emission tomography, Neoplasm staging
Referências
- Burger IA, 2019, J NUCL MED, V60, P1118, DOI 10.2967/jnumed.118.221564
- Demirci E, 2019, NUCL MED COMMUN, V40, P86, DOI 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000942
- Eiber M, 2016, EUR UROL, V70, P829, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.053
- Epstein JI, 2016, AM J SURG PATHOL, V40, P244, DOI 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
- Fendler WP, 2017, EUR J NUCL MED MOL I, V44, P1014, DOI 10.1007/s00259-017-3670-z
- Ferraro DA, 2020, THERANOSTICS, V10, P6082, DOI 10.7150/thno.44584
- Ferraro DA, 2019, CLIN NUCL MED, V44, pE291, DOI 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002473
- Hofman MS, 2020, LANCET, V395, P1208, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7
- Hupe MC, 2018, FRONT ONCOL, V8, DOI 10.3389/fonc.2018.00623
- Kranzbuhler B, 2020, J NUCL MED, V61, P194, DOI 10.2967/jnumed.118.225276
- Lopci E, 2018, J UROLOGY, V200, P95, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2018.01.079
- Mannweiler S, 2009, PATHOL ONCOL RES, V15, P167, DOI 10.1007/s12253-008-9104-2
- Maurer T, 2016, J UROLOGY, V195, P1436, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.025
- Mhawech-Fauceglia P, 2007, HISTOPATHOLOGY, V50, P472, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2007.02635.x
- Moch H, 2016, EUR UROL, V70, P93, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.029
- Muehlematter UJ, 2019, RADIOLOGY, V293, P350, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2019190687
- Muehlematter UJ, 2018, CLIN NUCL MED, V43, pE282, DOI 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002143
- O'Keefe DS, 1998, BBA-GENE STRUCT EXPR, V1443, P113
- Park SY, 2018, RADIOLOGY, V288, P495, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2018172232
- Paschalis A, 2019, EUR UROL, V76, P469, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.030
- Perner S, 2007, HUM PATHOL, V38, P696, DOI 10.1016/j.humpath.2006.11.012
- Pizzuto DA, 2018, EUR J NUCL MED MOL I, V45, P1335, DOI 10.1007/s00259-018-3979-2
- Ross JS, 2003, CLIN CANCER RES, V9, P6357
- Rupp NJ, 2019, J NUCL MED, V60, P1270, DOI 10.2967/jnumed.118.222307
- Soret M, 2007, J NUCL MED, V48, P932, DOI 10.2967/jnumed.106.035774
- van der Kwast TH, 2021, AM J SURG PATHOL, V45, P1118, DOI 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001728
- Woo S, 2020, EUR J HYBRID IMAG, V4, DOI 10.1186/s41824-020-00085-9
- Woythal N, 2018, J NUCL MED, V59, P238, DOI 10.2967/jnumed.117.195172
- Yaxley JW, 2019, BJU INT, V124, P401, DOI 10.1111/bju.14828