Purpose: To assess whether 18F-DCFPyL PET/multiparametric (mp)MR contributes to the diagnosis of clinically significant (cs) prostate cancer (PCa) compared to mpMR in patients with suspicion of PCa, or patients being considered for focal ablative therapies (FT).
Patients and methods: This ethics review board-approved, prospective study included 55 men with suspicion of PCa and negative systematic biopsies or clinically discordant low-risk PCa (n = 21) or those being considered for FT (n = 34) who received 18F-DCFPyL PET/mpMR. Each modality, PET, mpMR, and PET/MR (using the PROMISE classification), was assessed independently. All suspicious lesions underwent PET/MR-ultrasound fusion biopsies.
Results: There were 45/55 patients (81.8%) that had histologically proven PCa and 41/55 (74.5%) were diagnosed with csPCa. Overall, 61/114 lesions (53.5%) identified on any modality were malignant; 49/61 lesions (80.3%) were csPCa. On lesion-level analysis, for detection of csPCa, the sensitivity of PET was higher than that of mpMR and PET/MR (86% vs 67% and 69% [p = 0.027 and 0.041, respectively]), but at a lower specificity (32% vs 85% and 86%, respectively [p < 0.001]). The performance of MR and PET/MR was comparable. For identification of csPCa in PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions, the AUC (95% CI) for PET, mpMR, and PET/MR was 0.75 (0.65-0.86), 0.69 (0.56-0.82), and 0.78 (0.67-0.89), respectively. The AUC for PET/MR was significantly larger than that of mpMR (p = 0.04).
Conclusion: PSMA PET detects more csPCa than mpMR, but at low specificity. The performance PET/MR is better than mpMR for detection of csPCa in PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions.
Clinical registration: NCT03149861.
Keywords: 18F-DCFPyL; Multiparametric MR; PET/MR; PSMA; Prostate cancer.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.