PET-Based TheraP Eligibility and Outcomes of VISION-Eligible Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Who Received 177Lu-PSMA-617: Importance of 18F-FDG-Avid Discordant Findings.

Ridvan Arda Demirci, Alireza Ghodsi, Roman Gulati, Sanaz Behnia, Peter S Nelson, Heather H Cheng, Todd A Yezefski, Michael C Haffner, Jessica E Hawley, Robert B Montgomery, Evan Y Yu, Michael T Schweizer, Delphine L Chen, Amir Iravani
{"title":"PET-Based TheraP Eligibility and Outcomes of VISION-Eligible Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Who Received <sup>177</sup>Lu-PSMA-617: Importance of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG-Avid Discordant Findings.","authors":"Ridvan Arda Demirci, Alireza Ghodsi, Roman Gulati, Sanaz Behnia, Peter S Nelson, Heather H Cheng, Todd A Yezefski, Michael C Haffner, Jessica E Hawley, Robert B Montgomery, Evan Y Yu, Michael T Schweizer, Delphine L Chen, Amir Iravani","doi":"10.2967/jnumed.124.268167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The VISION and TheraP trials introduced different PET-based criteria for patient selection for treatment with <sup>177</sup>Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA). TheraP used a higher prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) uptake threshold than VISION and required <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET to exclude patients with discordant findings. Although the screen-failed patients had shorter overall survival (OS) than those treated with LuPSMA, it remains unclear whether their outcomes might have been modified if they had been exposed to LuPSMA. In this study, we evaluated associations between the TheraP eligibility criteria and subgroups and the treatment outcomes of patients who were deemed suitable and treated on the basis of VISION criteria. <b>Methods:</b> Consecutive patients who were treated with LuPSMA and who underwent pretreatment PSMA and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET were classified as TheraP-eligible (TheraP-E) and TheraP-ineligible (TheraP-I), the latter of which were subclassified as low PSMA or discordant. Odds ratios for an at least 50% decline in prostate-specific antigen (PSA50) were computed using logistic regression, and hazard ratios (HRs) for PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS) and OS were computed using Cox regressions. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for baseline imaging and clinical parameters. <b>Results:</b> Of 75 patients, 31 (41%) were deemed TheraP-I; of those, 24 were subclassified as having discordant disease. TheraP-I patients had a lower PSA50 rate than that of TheraP-E patients (28% vs. 67%; odds ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.52; <i>P</i> = 0.002) and a higher risk of PSA progression (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.3; <i>P</i> = 0.007). OS in the TheraP-I group was numerically shorter than in the TheraP-E group, but the comparison was only marginally significant (10.4 mo vs. not reached; HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0-3.7; <i>P</i> = 0.054). TheraP-I patients with low PSMA had no significantly different risk of death (<i>P</i> = 0.9) from that of TheraP-E patients, but those with discordant findings had higher risk of death (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.6; <i>P</i> = 0.02). Discordant disease remained prognostic for OS after adjusting for baseline imaging and clinical parameters (HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.3-6.8; <i>P</i> = 0.01). <b>Conclusion:</b> In VISION-eligible patients who were treated with LuPSMA, TheraP-I patients with discordant findings had lower PSA50, PSA-PFS, and OS. Our study suggests that the shorter OS of TheraP-I patients is mainly driven by the presence of discordant disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":94099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.124.268167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The VISION and TheraP trials introduced different PET-based criteria for patient selection for treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA). TheraP used a higher prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) uptake threshold than VISION and required 18F-FDG PET to exclude patients with discordant findings. Although the screen-failed patients had shorter overall survival (OS) than those treated with LuPSMA, it remains unclear whether their outcomes might have been modified if they had been exposed to LuPSMA. In this study, we evaluated associations between the TheraP eligibility criteria and subgroups and the treatment outcomes of patients who were deemed suitable and treated on the basis of VISION criteria. Methods: Consecutive patients who were treated with LuPSMA and who underwent pretreatment PSMA and 18F-FDG PET were classified as TheraP-eligible (TheraP-E) and TheraP-ineligible (TheraP-I), the latter of which were subclassified as low PSMA or discordant. Odds ratios for an at least 50% decline in prostate-specific antigen (PSA50) were computed using logistic regression, and hazard ratios (HRs) for PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS) and OS were computed using Cox regressions. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for baseline imaging and clinical parameters. Results: Of 75 patients, 31 (41%) were deemed TheraP-I; of those, 24 were subclassified as having discordant disease. TheraP-I patients had a lower PSA50 rate than that of TheraP-E patients (28% vs. 67%; odds ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.52; P = 0.002) and a higher risk of PSA progression (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.3; P = 0.007). OS in the TheraP-I group was numerically shorter than in the TheraP-E group, but the comparison was only marginally significant (10.4 mo vs. not reached; HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0-3.7; P = 0.054). TheraP-I patients with low PSMA had no significantly different risk of death (P = 0.9) from that of TheraP-E patients, but those with discordant findings had higher risk of death (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.6; P = 0.02). Discordant disease remained prognostic for OS after adjusting for baseline imaging and clinical parameters (HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.3-6.8; P = 0.01). Conclusion: In VISION-eligible patients who were treated with LuPSMA, TheraP-I patients with discordant findings had lower PSA50, PSA-PFS, and OS. Our study suggests that the shorter OS of TheraP-I patients is mainly driven by the presence of discordant disease.

接受 177Lu-PSMA-617 治疗的符合 VISION 资格的转移性抗阉割前列腺癌患者的 PET TheraP 资格和疗效:18F-FDG-Avid 不一致结果的重要性。
VISION 和 TheraP 试验采用了不同的 PET 标准来选择接受 177Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) 治疗的患者。TheraP 采用了比 VISION 更高的前列腺特异性膜抗原(PSMA)摄取阈值,并要求使用 18F-FDG PET 来排除检查结果不一致的患者。虽然筛查失败患者的总生存期(OS)比接受 LuPSMA 治疗的患者短,但如果他们接受了 LuPSMA 治疗,其结果是否会有所改变仍不清楚。在本研究中,我们评估了 TheraP 的资格标准和亚组与根据 VISION 标准被认为合适并接受治疗的患者的治疗结果之间的关联。研究方法将接受 LuPSMA 治疗并在治疗前接受 PSMA 和 18F-FDG PET 检查的连续患者分为符合 TheraP 标准的患者(TheraP-E)和不符合 TheraP 标准的患者(TheraP-I),后者又分为低 PSMA 或不协调亚组。采用逻辑回归计算前列腺特异性抗原(PSA50)下降至少 50% 的风险比,采用 Cox 回归计算 PSA 无进展生存期(PSA-PFS)和 OS 的危险比(HRs)。多变量分析根据基线成像和临床参数进行了调整。结果:在 75 名患者中,31 人(41%)被认定为 TheraP-I;其中 24 人被细分为不和谐疾病。TheraP-I患者的PSA50率低于TheraP-E患者(28% vs. 67%;几率比,0.19;95% CI,0.06-0.52;P = 0.002),PSA进展风险较高(HR,2.0;95% CI,1.2-3.3;P = 0.007)。TheraP-I组的OS在数量上短于TheraP-E组,但比较仅有轻微的显著性(10.4个月 vs. 未达到;HR,1.9;95% CI,1.0-3.7;P = 0.054)。低 PSMA TheraP-I 患者的死亡风险(P = 0.9)与 TheraP-E 患者无明显差异,但不一致结果的患者死亡风险更高(HR,2.3;95% CI,1.1-4.6;P = 0.02)。在调整了基线成像和临床参数后,不一致的疾病仍是影响OS的预后因素(HR,3.0;95% CI,1.3-6.8;P = 0.01)。结论在接受 LuPSMA 治疗的符合 VISION 条件的患者中,TheraP-I 患者的 PSA50、PSA-PFS 和 OS 均较低。我们的研究表明,TheraP-I 患者较短的 OS 主要是由于存在不一致的疾病。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信