An Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 vs. [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT for Lymph Node Staging in Patient Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy and Lymph Node Dissection: A Single Institutional Analysis
<b>Background/Objectives</b>: This study evaluates and compares the diagnostic accuracy of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [18F]F-PSMA-1007 for lymph node staging in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) scheduled for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and lymphadenectomy (LND). <b>Met...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Diagnostics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/12/1492 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849432936214953984 |
|---|---|
| author | Paola Arena Vittorio Fasulo Fabrizia Gelardi Nicola Frego Jelena Jandric Davide Maffei Pier Paolo Avolio Marco Paciotti Giuseppe Chiarelli Fabio De Carne Filippo Dagnino Andrea Piccolini Egesta Lopci Rodolfo Hurle Alberto Saita Arturo Chiti Massimo Lazzeri Laura Evangelista Nicolò Maria Buffi Paolo Casale Giovanni Lughezzani |
| author_facet | Paola Arena Vittorio Fasulo Fabrizia Gelardi Nicola Frego Jelena Jandric Davide Maffei Pier Paolo Avolio Marco Paciotti Giuseppe Chiarelli Fabio De Carne Filippo Dagnino Andrea Piccolini Egesta Lopci Rodolfo Hurle Alberto Saita Arturo Chiti Massimo Lazzeri Laura Evangelista Nicolò Maria Buffi Paolo Casale Giovanni Lughezzani |
| author_sort | Paola Arena |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <b>Background/Objectives</b>: This study evaluates and compares the diagnostic accuracy of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [18F]F-PSMA-1007 for lymph node staging in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) scheduled for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and lymphadenectomy (LND). <b>Methods</b>: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data on patients referred to our hospital from October 2020 to January 2023. We included all patients who underwent [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 or [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT for primary staging and subsequently had RARP with concomitant LND. The maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) for lymph nodes (LNs) and the SUV node-to-background ratio were reported. Two different cut-off values for the SUV node-to-background ratio (i.e., ≥2 vs. <2 and ≥15.5 vs. <15.5) were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of both tracers. The first cut-off was empirically chosen, while the second was based on Liu’s method. <b>Results</b>: A total of 156 patients were included (median age: 67 years). Among them, 83 underwent [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 73 underwent [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT. Suspicious lymph nodes were identified in 21 patients (13.5%). Pathological nodal involvement (pN1) was confirmed in 25 cases (16%). Of the 21 patients with suspicious pathological lymph nodes on PSMA PET/CT, 9 (42.9%) had positive nodes on the final pathology report. With an SUV node-to-background ratio cut-off of ≥2, [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 showed 37.5% sensitivity (SE) and 98.5% specificity(SP), while [18F]F-PSMA-1007 demonstrated 33.3% SE and 100% SP. Using the ≥15.5 cut-off, SE and SP were 31.3% and 100% for [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 11.1% and 100% for [18F]F-PSMA-1007, respectively. <b>Conclusions</b>: [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT showed, even if not statistically significantly, slightly lower SE and higher SP for nodal staging compared to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, irrespective of the SUV ratio used. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-3b6df505ae3644d5a82194c4aa744fae |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2075-4418 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-06-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Diagnostics |
| spelling | doaj-art-3b6df505ae3644d5a82194c4aa744fae2025-08-20T03:27:14ZengMDPI AGDiagnostics2075-44182025-06-011512149210.3390/diagnostics15121492An Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 vs. [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT for Lymph Node Staging in Patient Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy and Lymph Node Dissection: A Single Institutional AnalysisPaola Arena0Vittorio Fasulo1Fabrizia Gelardi2Nicola Frego3Jelena Jandric4Davide Maffei5Pier Paolo Avolio6Marco Paciotti7Giuseppe Chiarelli8Fabio De Carne9Filippo Dagnino10Andrea Piccolini11Egesta Lopci12Rodolfo Hurle13Alberto Saita14Arturo Chiti15Massimo Lazzeri16Laura Evangelista17Nicolò Maria Buffi18Paolo Casale19Giovanni Lughezzani20Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, ItalyIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089 Rozzano, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, ItalyIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089 Rozzano, ItalyIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089 Rozzano, ItalyIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089 Rozzano, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, ItalyIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089 Rozzano, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, ItalyIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089 Rozzano, ItalyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20027 Milan, Italy<b>Background/Objectives</b>: This study evaluates and compares the diagnostic accuracy of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [18F]F-PSMA-1007 for lymph node staging in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) scheduled for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and lymphadenectomy (LND). <b>Methods</b>: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data on patients referred to our hospital from October 2020 to January 2023. We included all patients who underwent [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 or [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT for primary staging and subsequently had RARP with concomitant LND. The maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) for lymph nodes (LNs) and the SUV node-to-background ratio were reported. Two different cut-off values for the SUV node-to-background ratio (i.e., ≥2 vs. <2 and ≥15.5 vs. <15.5) were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of both tracers. The first cut-off was empirically chosen, while the second was based on Liu’s method. <b>Results</b>: A total of 156 patients were included (median age: 67 years). Among them, 83 underwent [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 73 underwent [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT. Suspicious lymph nodes were identified in 21 patients (13.5%). Pathological nodal involvement (pN1) was confirmed in 25 cases (16%). Of the 21 patients with suspicious pathological lymph nodes on PSMA PET/CT, 9 (42.9%) had positive nodes on the final pathology report. With an SUV node-to-background ratio cut-off of ≥2, [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 showed 37.5% sensitivity (SE) and 98.5% specificity(SP), while [18F]F-PSMA-1007 demonstrated 33.3% SE and 100% SP. Using the ≥15.5 cut-off, SE and SP were 31.3% and 100% for [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 11.1% and 100% for [18F]F-PSMA-1007, respectively. <b>Conclusions</b>: [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT showed, even if not statistically significantly, slightly lower SE and higher SP for nodal staging compared to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, irrespective of the SUV ratio used.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/12/1492PSMAprostate cancernodal staging68Ga18Fprostatectomy |
| spellingShingle | Paola Arena Vittorio Fasulo Fabrizia Gelardi Nicola Frego Jelena Jandric Davide Maffei Pier Paolo Avolio Marco Paciotti Giuseppe Chiarelli Fabio De Carne Filippo Dagnino Andrea Piccolini Egesta Lopci Rodolfo Hurle Alberto Saita Arturo Chiti Massimo Lazzeri Laura Evangelista Nicolò Maria Buffi Paolo Casale Giovanni Lughezzani An Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 vs. [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT for Lymph Node Staging in Patient Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy and Lymph Node Dissection: A Single Institutional Analysis Diagnostics PSMA prostate cancer nodal staging 68Ga 18F prostatectomy |
| title | An Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 vs. [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT for Lymph Node Staging in Patient Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy and Lymph Node Dissection: A Single Institutional Analysis |
| title_full | An Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 vs. [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT for Lymph Node Staging in Patient Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy and Lymph Node Dissection: A Single Institutional Analysis |
| title_fullStr | An Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 vs. [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT for Lymph Node Staging in Patient Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy and Lymph Node Dissection: A Single Institutional Analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | An Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 vs. [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT for Lymph Node Staging in Patient Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy and Lymph Node Dissection: A Single Institutional Analysis |
| title_short | An Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 vs. [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT for Lymph Node Staging in Patient Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy and Lymph Node Dissection: A Single Institutional Analysis |
| title_sort | evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of 68ga ga psma 11 vs 18f f psma 1007 pet ct for lymph node staging in patient candidates for radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection a single institutional analysis |
| topic | PSMA prostate cancer nodal staging 68Ga 18F prostatectomy |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/12/1492 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT paolaarena anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT vittoriofasulo anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT fabriziagelardi anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT nicolafrego anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT jelenajandric anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT davidemaffei anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT pierpaoloavolio anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT marcopaciotti anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT giuseppechiarelli anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT fabiodecarne anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT filippodagnino anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT andreapiccolini anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT egestalopci anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT rodolfohurle anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT albertosaita anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT arturochiti anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT massimolazzeri anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT lauraevangelista anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT nicolomariabuffi anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT paolocasale anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT giovannilughezzani anevaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT paolaarena evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT vittoriofasulo evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT fabriziagelardi evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT nicolafrego evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT jelenajandric evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT davidemaffei evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT pierpaoloavolio evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT marcopaciotti evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT giuseppechiarelli evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT fabiodecarne evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT filippodagnino evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT andreapiccolini evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT egestalopci evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT rodolfohurle evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT albertosaita evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT arturochiti evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT massimolazzeri evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT lauraevangelista evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT nicolomariabuffi evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT paolocasale evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis AT giovannilughezzani evaluationofthediagnosticaccuracyof68gagapsma11vs18ffpsma1007petctforlymphnodestaginginpatientcandidatesforradicalprostatectomyandlymphnodedissectionasingleinstitutionalanalysis |