Skeletal 18 F-PSMA-1007 uptake in prostate cancer patients

Abstract

Background/objectives:

Accurate and uniform interpretation and reporting of metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) lesions on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) are indispensable. ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 is increasingly used because of its favorable imaging characteristics. However, increased non-specific skeletal uptake may be an important pitfall of this radioligand. Therefore, we aimed to assess the interobserver variation in reporting skeletal ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 uptake on PET/CT.

Design/methods:

In total, 33 ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT scans of 21 patients with primary PCa and 12 patients with biochemical recurrence were included, and a total of 85 skeletal lesions were evaluated by three independent observers. The primary endpoint was the interobserver variability of the likelihood of malignancy of the skeletal lesions on both patient and lesion level (kappa analysis).

Results:

Observers qualified most lesions as not malignant (81–91%) and the overall mean interobserver agreement was moderate on both patient (κ: 0.54) and lesion level (κ: 0.55). In 52 lesions without corresponding CT substrate, the rating resulted in not malignant in 95–100%. Availability of additional imaging (60% of lesions) did not improve interobserver agreement (κ: 0.39 on lesion level) and resulted in unchanged rating for all observers in 78%.

Conclusion:

This interobserver analysis of skeletal ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 uptake resulted in moderate agreement, in line with rates reported in literature. Importantly, the presence of non-specific skeletal uptake without CT substrate, as a potential shortcoming of ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007, did not impair interobserver agreement.

Keywords

interobserver agreement prostate cancer PSMA PET/CT skeletal uptake

Introduction

Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging using radiolabeled ligands targeted at the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is increasingly utilized as a diagnostic imaging tool for prostate cancer (PCa), and is the imaging modality of choice in primary high-risk and biochemically recurrent PCa.^1,2 In case of biochemical recurrence, the PSMA PET/computed tomography (CT) contributes to early detection of metastases at a low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level leading to management decision adjustment in >50% of patients.^3,4

Advanced personalized PCa treatment modalities such as metastasis-directed radiotherapy and PSMA radioligand therapy are highly dependent on PSMA PET/CT reported findings.^5–7 Therefore, accurate image interpretation plus complete and uniform reporting of findings on PSMA PET/CT are mandatory and indispensable. The ⁶⁸Ga-labeled PSMA agent is the worldwide most commonly used PSMA radiotracer in trials and in clinic practice, and multiple studies reported high sensitivity and specificity for ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA.⁸ Nevertheless, many centers are replacing the ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA radiotracer with ¹⁸F-labeled PSMA because of several advantages such as longer half-life, improved image resolution, lower urinary clearance, and lower costs.⁹ The standard application of PSMA PET/CT in PCa management policy and the substantial effect on treatment choice in combination with the increasing use of ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 require more knowledge of ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 uptake patterns and interpretations.

The number of lesions with a (possible) benign origin was reported to be higher in ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 compared to ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA.¹⁰ In some cases, a benign substrate such as an old fracture or degeneration can be recognized on the low-dose CT scan. ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 skeletal uptake without substrate on low-dose CT (non-specific) could lead to an increase in disagreement between observers and, subsequently, could make clinical decision more complicated.^10,11 The lack of data focusing specifically on this subject highlights the urgent need to investigate the impact of skeletal (non-specific) ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 uptake in PCa patients. This study describes the interobserver variation of three experienced observers in the assessment of skeletal ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 uptake on PET/CT with the aim to assess pitfalls in using ¹⁸F-PSMA as basis for PSMA-guided therapy.

Methods

Patient population

In total, 33 PCa patients (21 with primary diagnosis and 12 with biochemical recurrence) with at least one focus of skeletal ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 tracer uptake were included in this retrospective analysis. Available additional diagnostic imaging (MRI, bone scan, CT scan) was identified from the electronic patient file and collected.

PSMA PET/CT imaging

The ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT imaging was performed between April 2019 and January 2021 at three nuclear medicine departments in the Netherlands (20%, 32%, and 48% of patients, respectively). The ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 radioligand was synthesized following the procedure described by Cardinale et al.^12,¹⁸ F-PSMA-1007 was administered as an intravenous bolus injection (mean 198 ± 49 MBq, range 119–350 MBq). PET images were acquired after 60–120 min (±5 min) in 3D mode with an acquisition time of 3–4 min per position. The full information on image correction and reconstruction has been added as Supplemental Table 1. Low-dose CT was acquired from skull vertex to mid-thigh. Emission data were corrected and reconstructed according to the local protocol.

Imaging analysis

Three independent observers evaluated the 85 skeletal lesions on ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT scans. These observers were two expert nuclear medicine physicians (O1 and O2, >10 years of nuclear medicine experience, 7 years of experience in reporting PSMA PET/CT) and one expert radiologist (O3, 10 years of musculoskeletal radiology experience and 1 year of experience in reporting PSMA PET/CT). All ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT scans were anonymized prior to evaluation, and the observers were only provided with information about the anatomical location of each lesion (no clinical patient data).

Lesion report

The image analysis was structured in a lesion report according to the European Association of Nuclear Medicine guideline.¹³ The report included a five-point scale, rating five different topics: image quality, level of noise, level of lesion uptake, substrate on low-dose CT, and likelihood of malignancy (Table 1). Lesion reports were completed by each observer in a REDCap™ database and reciprocally blinded for the other observers to avoid bias.

Table 1.

The structure of the answers required in this study.

Question	Answers
Part 1 – No additional imaging available (n = 85)
1. Image quality	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor	Very poor
2. Level of noise	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor	Very poor
3. Level of lesion uptake	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor	Very poor
4a. Presence of substrate on CT	Yes	No
4b. If 4a answers yes: Likelihood of malignancy of substrate on CT	Definitely	Probably	Equivocal	Probably not	Definitely not
5. Likelihood of malignancy	Definitely	Probably	Equivocal	Probably not	Definitely not
Part 2 – With additional imaging available (n = 51)
1. Likelihood of malignancy (combining all available imaging)	Definitely	Equivocal	Definitely not

After completion of part 1, the database was locked and data reports were blinded for all observers. The role of additional imaging was evaluated by a separate question considering likelihood of malignancy in a three-point scale rating. A total of 51 lesions with available additional imaging from the patient record were re-analyzed to support the final finding.

Statistics

The interobserver variation was reported on patient (lowest score per patient) and lesion level using an index of observer agreement, kappa analysis (unweighted).¹⁴ For the kappa analysis, the five-point scale in the first report was clustered into three groups: Malignant (1, 2: Definitely and Probably) | Equivocal | Not malignant (4, 5: Probably not and Definitely not). The three-point scale in the second report was converted similarly: Malignant (Definitely), Equivocal, Not malignant (Definitely not). The kappa was interpreted as fair (>0.20), moderate (>0.40), substantial (>0.60), and almost perfect agreement (>0.80).¹⁴

Results

In total, 85 ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 avid skeletal lesions in 33 patients were identified from the original nuclear medicine physicians report. The median number of lesions per patient was 2 (range 1–9). Lesions (n = 85) were located in ribs (48%), pelvis (27%), vertebra (27%), scapula (2%), and dens (1%; Figure 1(a) and (b)).

Figure 1.

Lesion number and lesion location. (a) Frequency diagram representing the number of lesions per patient (n = 33). (b) Pie chart representing the distribution of lesion locations (n = 85).

For patients with primary PCa (64%), the median PSA value at the time of PSMA PET imaging was 22.0 µg/L (range: 4.7–73.0 µg/L). The median PSA in patients with biochemical recurrence (36%) at the time of PSMA PET was 0.9 µg/L (range: 0.2–5.7 µg/L). A summary of patient demographics is found in Table 2.

Table 2.

The characteristics of the included 33 patients with primary or recurrent prostate cancer.

Variable	Primary PCa (n = 21)	Recurrent PCa (n = 12)
PSA (µg/L)	22.0 (4.7–73.0)	0.9 (0.2–5.7)
Primary Gleason score (%)
⩽7	11/21 (52)	11/12 (92)
8	5/21 (24)	0 (0)
>9	5/21 (24)	1/12 (8)
Primary T-stage (%)
T1–2	14/21 (67)	5/12 (42)
T3	7/21 (33)	7/12 (58)
Primary N-stage (%)
Unknown	0 (0)	1/12 (8)
Nx	10/21 (48)	5/12 (42)
N0	3/21 (14)	3/12 (25)
N1	8/21 (38)	3/12 (25)

PCa, prostate cancer.

Likelihood of malignancy

Observers qualified most lesions as not malignant (81–91%), 7–15% as malignant, and 1–4% as equivocal. The mean interobserver agreement of overall likelihood of malignancy was 89% on lesion level (mean κ 0.547), and 82% on patient level (mean κ 0.544) (Table 3).

Table 3.

The agreed number and interobserver agreement on lesion and patient level.

Variable		Agreed number (%)	Kappa statistics (SE)*
Likelihood of malignancy
Lesion level	O1 versus O2	77 (91)	0.536 (0.135)
	O2 versus O3	74 (87)	0.489 (0.121)
	O1 versus O3	76 (89)	0.615 (0.115)
	Mean	76 (89)	0.547
Likelihood of malignancy
Patient level	O1 versus O2	29 (88)	0.634 (0.151)
	O2 versus O3	27 (82)	0.422 (0.146)
	O1 versus O3	25 (76)	0.575 (0.149)
	Mean	27 (82)	0.544

The unweighted kappa was applied to three categories (not malignant, equivocal, and malignant) in all likelihood of malignancy analyses. The unweighted kappa assigns an equal value to all categories.

Image quality, level of noise, and uptake

Image quality of the PSMA PET/CT was rated good to excellent in most cases (92–100%), and level of noise was rated fair to good in 89–100% of cases. Meanwhile, lesion uptake showed more broad variation between observers ranging from mostly excellent/good to mostly poor/very poor (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Representation of frequencies of rating of image quality, level of noise, and level of uptake in report 1 by three observers.

Lesions with excellent to good uptake were rated malignant in 27% (8/30, median of 3 ratings), and lesions with poor to very poor uptake were never rated malignant (0/27, median of 3 ratings).

Corresponding CT substrate

Substrate on low-dose CT was rated as present by at least two observers in 21 lesions (25%), and these lesions with substrate were rated malignant in 43% (9/21), and not malignant in 52% (agreement of 71%, k = 0.489). Substrate on corresponding CT was absent in 64 lesions (75%), and their rating was not malignant in 100%, 98%, and 94% of lesions per observer, respectively (agreement 95%).

Four examples of lesions with and without corresponding CT substrate are demonstrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Four examples of lesions on fused PSMA PET/CT (left) and low-dose CT (right): (a) iliac lesion with corresponding CT substrate rated as malignant, (b) scapula lesion with corresponding CT substrate rated as malignant, (c) vertebral lesion with corresponding CT substrate rated as not malignant (substrate corresponding to vertebral hemangioma), and (d) costal lesion without corresponding CT substrate rated as not malignant.

Additional imaging

Additional imaging was available for 51 lesions in 28 patients; this included 36 lesions on diagnostic CT (71%), 19 previous PET/CT scans (37%), 10 MRI scans (20%), and 4 bone scans (8%). For 17 out of 51 lesions (33%), more than one additional image set was available.

Lesions with additional imaging were rated not malignant in 78–88% and interobserver agreement was 80% (mean κ 0.385), which is similar to the rating for these same lesions without the use of additional imaging (report part 1) (77–92% not malignant, agreement 84%; Table 4).

Table 4.

Results for lesions with additional imaging present (n = 51): the agreed number and interobserver agreement.

Report		Agreed number (%)	Kappa statistics (SE)*
Report 1: Additional imaging present, not available for observers
Likelihood of malignancy	O1 versus O2	88	0.405 (0.174)
	O2 versus O3	82	0.378 (0.140)
	O1 versus O3	82	0.446 (0.152)
	Mean	84	0.410
Report 2: Additional imaging present AND available for observers
Likelihood of malignancy	O1 versus O2	80	0.335 (0.123)
	O2 versus O3	84	0.350 (0.118)
	O1 versus O3	76	0.471 (0.146)
	Mean	80	0.385

The unweighted kappa was applied to three categories (not malignant, equivocal, and malignant); the unweighted kappa assigns an equal value to all categories.

Furthermore, the availability of additional imaging resulted in identical likelihood of malignancy in 78% of lesions (40 out of 51) by all observers (report 1 compared to report 2).

Discussion

This analysis demonstrated moderate interobserver agreement in malignancy rating of skeletal ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 uptake on lesion and patient level (agreement 89% and 82%, respectively).

Lesions with poor uptake were never rated malignant (100%). Lesions without CT substrate were rated ‘not malignant’ in 97% and interobserver agreement was 95%. Therefore, non-specific skeletal uptake, often mentioned as a potential shortcoming of ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007, did not hamper interobserver agreement.

Interobserver agreement results in this report are in line with reported analysis for ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 (74–94% agreement for bone lesions) and with reported agreement for ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA (κ: 0.559 for bone lesions).^15,16

Data reporting interobserver agreement for skeletal PSMA uptake regularly describe agreement per patient or per region and not per lesion.^15–18 Our analysis showed a moderate interobserver agreement of skeletal ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 uptake on lesion level (mean agreement 89%, mean κ: 0.55). A uniform rating on lesion level is crucial since clinical decision-making is mostly based on a lesion level, especially in tailored therapy such as metastasis-directed radiotherapy and PSMA radioligand therapy.^2,5,7

Skeletal PSMA uptake with corresponding CT substrate is not always associated with malignancy, but has also been observed in benign disease such as fracture, degeneration, or hemangioma.^13,19,20 In this report, lesions with corresponding substrate were rated benign in 52% and in 30% of lesions with substrate the observers disagreed on the nature of lesions. This variation in differentiation between malignant and benign in ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 uptake with CT substrate reflects the difficulty to give a conclusive report on the nature of the lesion in the absence of pathological validation and highlights the need for more guidance on ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007-specific reporting. Further research supported by hard evidence such as pathological confirmation (biopsy) and changes on follow-up scans is urgently needed.

Access to other imaging techniques and detailed clinical patient information reported to positively contribute to a more conform interobserver agreement.²¹ Nevertheless, we reported no improvement in interobserver agreement if additional imaging was available (in 78% of lesions with accessible conventional imaging no change in rating was reported). However, in our report, observers were blinded from any clinical patient data to ensure unbiased interpretation. Apparently, the availability of both extra imaging and clinical patient information is important to improve interobserver agreement. Therefore, our reported interobserver agreement might be an underestimation of daily practice when all additional imaging and patient data are available, which also emphasizes the importance of providing nuclear medicine physicians with accurate clinical information.

Published interobserver analyses are regularly based on a two-point scale (malignant versus not malignant).^16,18,22 However, the three PSMA PET/CT interpretation guidelines currently used in clinical practice (E-PSMA, PSMA-RADS, and PROMISE) strongly recommend the use of a three-point scale: Malignant, Equivocal, and Not malignant.^13,23,24 Therefore, the use of a three-point scale based rating of skeletal lesions in this analysis is representative and informative for daily practice.

Limitations of this study include the retrospective nature of the data, the lack of pathological confirmation (small lesions, 75% without substrate and, therefore, prone to sample error), and the relatively low number of patients. This research contributed in gaining more insight in ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 skeletal uptake interpretations and possible pitfalls. Nevertheless, more research is necessary, preferably in a prospective or randomized context.

Conclusion

This analysis of interobserver variation in reporting skeletal ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 uptake resulted in a moderate, clinically acceptable interobserver agreement in line with rates reported in literature. Importantly, the presence of non-specific ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 skeletal uptake without CT substrate, a dreaded pitfall of ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007, did not hamper interobserver agreement.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tam-10.1177_17588359231179311 – Supplemental material for Skeletal 18F-PSMA-1007 uptake in prostate cancer patients

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tam-10.1177_17588359231179311 for Skeletal 18F-PSMA-1007 uptake in prostate cancer patients by Jorinde Janssen, Walter Noordzij, Ton Velleman, Igle Jan de Jong, Johannes A. Langendijk, J. Fred Verzijlbergen, Gilles N. Stormezand and Shafak Aluwini in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank R.J.A. van Moorselaar (MD, PhD) for his advisory role.

Declarations

ORCID iD

Jorinde Janssen

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Hofman

Lawrentschuk

Francis

, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet 2020; 395: 1208–1216.

Cornford

van den Bergh

RCN

Briers

, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II-2020 update: treatment of relapsing and metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2021; 79: 263–282.

Fendler

Ferdinandus

Czernin

, et al. Impact of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET on the management of recurrent prostate cancer in a prospective single-arm clinical trial. J Nucl Med 2020; 61: 1793–1799.

Maurer

Eiber

Schwaiger

, et al. Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Urol 2016; 13: 226–235.

Phillips

Shi

Deek

, et al. Outcomes of observation vs stereotactic ablative radiation for oligometastatic prostate cancer: the ORIOLE phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2020; 6: 650–659.

Sartor

de Bono

Chi

, et al. Lutetium-177-PSMA-617 for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. New Engl J Med 2021; 385: 1091–1103.

Privé

Peters

SMB

Muselaers

CHJ

, et al. Lutetium-177-PSMA-617 in low-volume hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer: a prospective pilot study. Clin Cancer Res 2021; 27: 3595–3601.

Alberts

Seide

Mingels

, et al. Comparing the diagnostic performance of radiotracers in recurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021; 48: 2978-2989.

Werner

Derlin

Lapa

, et al. (18)F-labeled, PSMA-Targeted radiotracers: leveraging the advantages of radiofluorination for prostate cancer molecular imaging. Theranostics 2020; 10: 1–16.

10.

Rauscher

Krönke

König

, et al. Matched-pair comparison of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and (18)F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT: frequency of pitfalls and detection efficacy in biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med 2020; 61: 51–57.

11.

Grünig

Maurer

Thali

, et al. Focal unspecific bone uptake on [(18)F]-PSMA-1007 PET: a multicenter retrospective evaluation of the distribution, frequency, and quantitative parameters of a potential pitfall in prostate cancer imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021; 48: 4483–4494.

12.

Cardinale

Martin

Remde

, et al. Procedures for the GMP-compliant production and quality control of [(18)F]PSMA-1007: a next generation radiofluorinated tracer for the detection of prostate cancer. Pharmaceuticals 2017; 10: 77.

13.

Ceci

Oprea-Lager

Emmett

, et al. E-PSMA: the EANM standardized reporting guidelines v1.0 for PSMA-PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021; 48: 1626–1638.

14.

Landis

Koch

GG.

The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174.

15.

Wondergem

van der Zant

Broos

WAM

, et al. Matched-pair comparison of (18)F-dcfpyl PET/CT and (18)F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in 240 prostate cancer patients: interreader agreement and lesion detection rate of suspected lesions. J Nucl Med 2021; 62: 1422–1429.

16.

Demirci

Akyel

Caner

, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement on prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT images according to the miTNM and PSMA-RADS criteria. Nucl Med Commun 2020; 41: 759–767.

17.

Miksch

Bottke

Krohn

, et al. Interobserver variability, detection rate, and lesion patterns of (68)Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT in early-stage biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2020; 47: 2339–2347.

18.

Fendler

Calais

Eiber

, et al. Assessment of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET accuracy in localizing recurrent prostate cancer: a prospective single-arm clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2019; 5: 856–863.

19.

Hofman

Hicks

Maurer

, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET: clinical utility in prostate cancer, normal patterns, pearls, and Pitfalls. Radiographics 2018; 38: 200–217.

20.

Foley

Redman

Graham

, et al. Fluorine-18 labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-1007 positron-emission tomography-computed tomography: normal patterns, pearls, and pitfalls. Clin Radiol 2020; 75: 903–913.

21.

Chavoshi

Mirshahvalad

Metser

, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the observer agreement. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2022; 49: 1021–1029.

22.

Kranzbühler

Nagel

Becker

, et al. Clinical performance of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 45: 20–30.

23.

Rowe

Pienta

Pomper

, et al. PSMA-RADS version 1.0: a step towards standardizing the interpretation and reporting of PSMA-targeted PET imaging studies. Eur Urol 2018; 73: 485–487.

24.

Eiber

Herrmann

Calais

, et al. Prostate cancer molecular imaging standardized evaluation (PROMISE): proposed miTNM classification for the interpretation of PSMA-Ligand PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2018; 59: 469–478.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB