Do bone scans over-stage disease compared to PSMA PET? An international multicenter retrospective study with blinded independent readers.

Authors

Wolfgang Fendler

Wolfgang P. Fendler

Department of Nuclear Medicine, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

Wolfgang P. Fendler , Thomas A. Hope , Fei Jiang , Daniel Thompson , Francesco Barbato , Roxanna Juarez , Miguel Hernandez Pampaloni , Martin S. Auerbach , Pawan Gupta , Matthias R. Benz , Jeremie Calais

Organizations

Department of Nuclear Medicine, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, Department of radiology and biomedical imaging. University of California, San Francisco., San Francisco, CA, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, UCLA Department of Nuclear Medicine, Los Angeles, CA

Research Funding

Institutional Funding
UCLA, UCSF, UKEssen

Background: PSMA positron emission tomography (PET) has a higher accuracy than computed tomography (CT) and bone scans to stage patients with prostate cancer. However, we do not understand how to apply clinical trial data based on conventional imaging to patients staged using PSMA PET. Therefore, we aim to evaluate the ability of bone scans to detect osseous metastases using PSMA PET as a reference standard. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective diagnostic study, 167 patients with prostate cancer, who were imaged with bone scan and PSMA PET performed within 100 days were included for analysis. Each study was interpreted by three blinded readers, and the results of the PSMA PET were used as the reference standard. Endpoints were positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and specificity for bone scans. Additionally, inter-reader reproducibility, positivity rate, uptake on PSMA PET, and number of lesions were evaluated. Results: 167 patients were included in the study, with 77 at initial staging, 60 in the BCR/CSPC setting and 30 in the CRPC setting. BS findings for metastatic disease validated by PSMA PET were tabulated. In all patients, the PPV, NPV and specificity for bone scans were 0.73 [0.61,0.82], 0.82 [0.74,0.88] and 0.82 [0.74,0.88]. In patients at initial staging, the PPV, NPV and specificity for bone scans were 0.43 [0.26,0.63], 0.94 [0.85,0.98], and 0.80 [0.68,0.88]. At initial staging 13/23 (57%) of positive bone scans were false positive. Inter-reader agreement for bone disease was moderate for bone scans (Fleiss k, 0.51) and substantial for the PSMA PET reference standard (Fleiss k, 0.80). Conclusions: In this multicenter retrospective study, the PPV of bone scans was low in patients at initial staging with majority of positive bone scans being false positives. This suggests that a large proportion of patients considered low volume metastatic by bone scan actually have localized disease.

n=167 patientsInitial stagingBCR/CSPCCRPCOverall
BS+/PSMA+ (TP)10 (13)17 (28)21 (70)48 (29)
BS-/PSMA- (TN)51 (66)28 (47)5 (17)84 (50)
BS+/PSMA- (FP)13 (17)5 (8)0 (0)18 (11)
BS-/PSMA+ (FN)3 (4)10 (17)4 (13)17 (10)

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2023 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Discussion Session

Session Title

Genitourinary Cancer—Prostate, Testicular, and Penile

Track

Genitourinary Cancer—Prostate, Testicular, and Penile

Sub Track

Epidemiology/Outcomes

Citation

J Clin Oncol 41, 2023 (suppl 16; abstr 5011)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.5011

Abstract #

5011

Poster Bd #

105

Abstract Disclosures