Cited by 19Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and ApplicationsProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

The Impact of PSMA PET–Based Eligibility Criteria Used in the Prospective Phase II TheraP Trial in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen–Targeted Radioligand Therapy

Open access
Karimzadeh, Amir, Heck, Matthias, Tauber, Robert, Solaris, Esteban, Nekolla, Stephan, Knorr, Karina, Haller, Bernhard, D’Alessandria, Calogero +3 more·2023·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand therapy (RLT) has shown encouraging results for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the prospective, multicenter, randomized phase II TheraP study. The inclusion criteria for that study comprised a pretherapeutic 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET scan showing sufficient tumor uptake using a predefined threshold and the absence of 18F-FDG–positive, PSMA ligand–negative tumor lesions. However, the prognostic value of these PET-based inclusion criteria remains unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the outcome of mCRPC patients treated with PSMA RLT using TheraP as well as other TheraP-based PET inclusion criteria. Methods: First, patients were dichotomized into 2 groups whose PSMA PET scans did (TheraP contrast-enhanced PSMA [cePSMA] PET–positive) or did not (TheraP cePSMA PET–negative) fulfill the inclusion criteria of TheraP. Notably, unlike in TheraP, 18F-FDG PET was not performed on our patients. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (PSA decline ≥ 50% from baseline), PSA progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were compared. Additionally, patients were further dichotomized according to predefined SUVmax thresholds different from those used in TheraP to analyze their potential impact on outcome as well. Results: In total, 107 mCRPC patients were included in this analysis (TheraP cePSMA PET–positive, n = 77; TheraP cePSMA PET–negative, n = 30). PSA response rates were higher in TheraP cePSMA PET–positive patients than in TheraP cePSMA PET–negative patients (54.5% vs. 20%, respectively; P = 0.0012). The median PSA progression-free survival (P = 0.007) and OS (P = 0.0007) of patients were significantly longer in the TheraP cePSMA PET–positive group than in the TheraP cePSMA PET–negative group. Moreover, being in the TheraP cePSMA PET–positive group was identified as a significant prognosticator of longer OS (P = 0.003). The application of different SUVmax thresholds for a single hottest lesion demonstrated no influence on outcome in patients eligible for PSMA RLT. Conclusion: Patient selection for PSMA RLT according to the inclusion criteria of TheraP led to a better treatment response and outcome in our preselected patient cohort. However, a relevant number of patients not fulfilling these criteria also showed substantial rates of response.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2967/jnumed.122.265346

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Michalski K, Ruf J, Goetz C, et al. Prognostic implication of dual tracer PET/CT: PSMA ligand and [ 18 F] FDG PET/CT in patients undergoing [ 177 Lu] PSMA radi- oligand therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:2024-2030.
  2. Kratochwil C, Fendler WP, Eiber M, et al. EANM procedure guidelines for radio- nuclide therapy with 177 Lu-labelled PSMA-ligands ( 177 Lu-PSMA-RLT). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:2536-2544.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karimzadeh, A., Heck, M., Tauber, R., Solaris, E., Nekolla, S., Knorr, K., Haller, B., D’Alessandria, C., Weber, W. A., Eiber, M., & Rauscher, I.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2023-06-08
Volume
64
Issue
8
Pages
1252-1258
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
OpenAlex
W4379879288
Cited by
19
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1
FWCI
3.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, PSMA radioligand therapy, SUVmax threshold, prognostic factors, overall survival, PSA response, treatment response prediction
MeSH terms
Dipeptides, Heterocyclic Compounds, 1-Ring, Humans, Lutetium, Male, Prospective Studies, Prostate, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review