Most Innovative Accurate Specific Imaging Tests Globally for Prostate Issues Review in 2019

Abbreviations and Acronyms

eighteenF-DCFBC	(Northward-[Northward-[(S)-1,iii-dicarboxypropyl]carbamoyl]-4-18F-fluorobenzyl-L-cysteine
eighteenF-FACBC	18F-fluciclovine
18F-FDG	18F-fluorodeoxyglucose
18F-FDHT	16β-18F-fluoro-5α-dihydrotestosterone
18F-NaF	18F-sodium fluoride
ADT	androgen impecuniousness therapy
BCR	biochemical recurrence
CRPC	castration resistant prostate cancer
CT	computerized tomography
ERPC	endocrine resistant prostate cancer
FDA	Food and Drug Assistants
mCRPC	metastatic CRPC
mERPC	metastatic ERPC
MRI	magnetic resonance imaging
NGI	adjacent generation imaging
nmCRPC	nonmetastatic CRPC
nmERPC	nonmetastatic ERPC
OS	overall survival
PET	positron emission tomography
PSA	prostate specific antigen
PSADT	PSA doubling time
PSMA	prostate specific membrane antigen
RADAR	Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence

Prostate cancer is the most ofttimes diagnosed noncutaneous cancer in men according to the 2018 estimates by the ACS (American Cancer Order®).¹ In the United States approximately 164,690 men will be newly diagnosed and an estimated 29,430 will die of prostate cancer.¹ Prostate cancer, especially in the patient at high adventure, is a progressive disease (Appendix 1).^{two–half-dozen} With ongoing advancements in imaging technology the power to place previously undetectable metastases may result in a shift in the definition of affliction states and in improved outcomes.

Treatment options and regimens in patients with advanced prostate cancer (hormone naïve and castration resistant) have increased in recent years and now include novel androgen centrality inhibitors, immunotherapy, targeted α particle therapy and chemotherapy.⁷ Six treatments of mCRPC and nmCRPC, all with unlike mechanisms of activeness and Os benefits, have been approved since 2010 (ie sipuleucel-T, cabazitaxel, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, enzalutamide, ²²³Ra and apalutamide).^8,9 Additional therapies are being studied, such as poly-(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase and phosphoinositide 3-kinase/poly peptide kinase B pathway inhibitors. Studies suggest that earlier detection of advanced disease in specific patient populations, coupled with these newer handling options, will potentially increase the Bone benefit in these patients, specially in correlation with improved predictive markers to help guide handling selection.^10,xi

The development of metastases is a seminal event during prostate cancer progression since CRPC heralds potentially fatal disease. Although Bone has improved from approximately 18 months to 3 years since the approval of new therapeutic agents, CRPC is invariably fatal. In that location are risk factors prognostic of worse outcomes. In a retrospective study of 205 patients with mCRPC advanced age, time since diagnosis, a greater number of bone metastases, higher PSA levels and shorter PSADT were associated with shorter OS.¹²

Review of Prior Radiographic Assessments to Detect Advanced Recurrence Grouping Recommendations

The RADAR I Grouping initially convened to provide recommendations for the early on identification of prostate cancer metastases. RADAR I recommended preferred traditional imaging modalities and specifically when and how ofttimes imaging should be performed (fig. 1).^thirteen

Figure 1. RADAR I recommendations.^xiii Reprinted with permission from Elsevier.

Later the RADAR II Group met to elaborate on the piece of work of the original RADAR I Group and provide recommendations on the therapeutic sequencing, combining or layering of approved treatments in patients with metastatic prostate cancer in whom CRPC developed.¹⁴

Methods

The RADAR III Group convened to evaluate the use of NGI modalities and review the rationale for obtaining specific scans, the frequency of imaging, interpreting imaging results and subsequent clinical usefulness, and finally proposing a clinical decision making handling algorithm. RADAR III discussed accessibility and utilization among medical, radiation and urological oncologists in various practise settings (eg academic vs customs and rural vs urban). Recommendations were fabricated regarding prostate cancer classification to accurately correspond the changing landscape of imaging and subsequent handling decision making. RADAR Iii acknowledges the limitations of making recommendations when level 1 evidence-based data are not nevertheless bachelor. Still, given the rapid development and increased availability of these newer imaging modalities and since practitioners are faced with making clinical decisions, recommendations are needed. RADAR 3, based on their expert opinion and clinical feel, provides guidance for using these NGIs.

Updates were made to the original RADAR I guidelines to include recommendations on emerging NGI technologies based on the specificity and sensitivity of published reports and real-world availability. RADAR III besides acknowledged the importance of incorporating NGI into future clinical trial designs. Importantly information technology was agreed that before initiation of handling may pb to amend outcomes with optimal patient selection. More definitive clinical trials are required to determine the optimal utilization of NGI technologies.

Side by side Generation Imaging Modalities

PET is a functional imaging technique that is able to discover metabolic activity, blood catamenia, apoptosis, etc.¹⁵ The use of PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer has been advanced by the evolution of new radiotracers, including ^xviiiF-FACBC, ¹¹C-choline, agents targeting PSMA, ¹⁸F-FDHT and ^elevenC-acetate.^7,16

These NGI PET/CT radiotracers allow for the detection of previously undetectable metastases by traditional imaging studies (CT and ^99mTc bone scans) due to improved sensitivity and specificity. Several of these NGI techniques have been canonical by the FDA for use in patients with prostate cancer, including ^xviiiF-FACBC, ¹¹C-choline, ¹⁸F-NaF and ¹⁸F-FDG. FDA approval by and large signifies that the scans can be performed reproducibly and safely. Additionally, the FDA also as reimbursement agencies generally require a demonstration of clinical usefulness via alterations in treatment decisions based on the use of the specific imaging modality.^15,17 Yet, FDA blessing for these scans does not necessarily mean that proven value in clinical practice has been established. Specifically information technology does non mandate that treatment decisions are altered in a fashion which leads to clinical benefit in a patient through efficacy, condom or quality of life. In fact, currently lilliputian clinical data demonstrate that NGI improves outcomes. Moreover, FDA approval does not guarantee reimbursement past Medicare or third party payers.

Next Generation Imaging Tracers

Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography

¹⁸F-FACBC

¹⁸F-FACBC (Axumin^®) is a synthetic 50-leucine counterpart which exhibits loftier tumor specific accumulation in principal and metastatic prostate carcinomas past targeting amino acid transports, which are up-regulated in prostate cancer.^18,19 It was recently canonical by the FDA in patients with suspected recurrence based on elevated PSA post-obit prior treatment.

¹⁸F-fluciclovine demonstrated superiority compared with other NGIs such every bit ¹⁸F-choline and ¹¹C-choline. A meta-analysis of unlike PET tracers demonstrated that ¹⁸F-fluciclovine had greater ability to find locally recurrent disease vs ¹⁸F-choline, although the departure was not statistically significant.^xx In a prospective written report of 89 patients comparison the accuracy of ^xviiiF-FACBC and ^xiC-choline PET/CT in patients undergoing prostatectomy who presented with biochemical relapse, ^xviiiF-FACBC showed superior detection over ¹¹C-choline. When categorizing patients by PSA level, the percent of patients with positive findings were more often than not higher with ¹⁸F-FACBC than with ¹¹C-choline (meet table).^21,22

Table. Adjacent generation imaging^vii,22

Radiotracer	% Sensitivity	% Specificity	Activeness/Target	Pros	Cons	Indications
xviiiF-FACBC	89–100	67–70	Amino acid transport	Slow urinary excretion improving point, more sensitive at lower PSA than acetate + choline	Moderate specificity + moderate functioning at depression PSA cutoffs, needs validation in larger studies	Detection of local + distant recurrence
11C-choline	38–98	50–100	Prison cell membrane synthesis	Minimal bladder excretion	Short half-life, variable sensitivity + specificity for BCR specially at depression PSA cutoffs, only few centers have cyclotron on site	Detection of recurrent affliction in lymph node + soft tissues
68Ga-PSMA	63–86	95–100	Targets PSMA	Loftier detection rates even at low PSA	Requires 68Ga generator, needs more validation	Loftier detection rate of local + distant sites of recurrence, besides of metastatic disease in high risk pts undergoing primary definitive therapy
xviiiF-DCFBC	92	88	Targets PSMA	Slightly longer one-half-life than 68Ga	1st Generation 18F labeled urea, considerable blood pool activity, existence investigated in clinical trials, needs more than validation	For amend selection of primary definitive therapy, hormone sensitive + CRPC
eighteenF-DCFPyL	71	89	Binds PSMA	More sensitive to find occult lymph nodes before primary definition therapy, college tumor-to-background ratios due to high analogousness	Nevertheless being investigated in phase 3 clinical study	Detection of occult lymph nodes earlier primary definitive treatment, early local + distant recurrence
11C-acetate	42–ninety	64–96	Lipid synthesis	Ability to epitome soft tissue + skeletal metastases, minimal bladder excretion22	Curt half-life, few centers accept cyclotron on site	Identification of metastatic disease recurrence

Limitations of ¹⁸F-fluciclovine include unknown responsiveness to ADT, limited information regarding imaging in the CRPC setting and the overall limitations of potential variability in sensitivity and specificity as they chronicle to the location of metastases (eg PSA and PSADT).²³

¹¹C-Choline

¹¹C-choline has variable sensitivity and specificity for biochemical recurrence, especially at depression PSA levels.^{21 11}C-choline has express availability due to its short half-life of 20.4 minutes, which requires an on-site cyclotron, which few centers in the United States possess.²⁴

^xviiiF-NaF

^xviiiF-NaF is a radioactive tracer that diffuses into os, leading to an substitution of fluoride ions with hydroxide ions of the hydroxyapatite crystals, eventually forming fluorapatite.^{25 18}F-NaF PET/CT has higher specificity and sensitivity than traditional bone scans or planar single photon emission CT.²⁶ Despite this, the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) no longer reimburses ¹⁸F-NaF for prostate cancer management.

Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen Ligands

Novel imaging modalities using radiolabeled tracers with PSMA, such equally ⁶⁸Ga PSMA PET/CT, have shown promising results with all-time employ for biochemical recurrence.^27,28 A review of the literature generally favors PSMA based agents vs choline and fluciclovine to detect recurrence as a office of low PSA levels, although comparison studies accept non been performed (fig. 2).^xv Based on the growing body of literature regarding its clinical usefulness, the availability of PSMA in the United states of america is limited merely beginning to increase.¹⁵

Figure two. Summary of data evaluating prostate cancer PET detection rates as role of PSA.^xv Reprinted with permission from Elsevier.

⁶⁸Ga-Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen

Every bit rapidly developed and implemented at different centers and clinics in Europe, Australia, South America and the United states of america, ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC (gallium citrate) is 1 of the more applied ligands in this grade of small molecule inhibitors worldwide. Information technology has loftier sensitivity (63% to 86%) and specificity (95% to 100%) fifty-fifty at depression PSA levels based on unlike single institutional and multi-institutional trials.^29–31

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of reported predictors of positive ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET, and respective sensitivity and specificity profiles, sixteen articles with a total of 1,309 patients were analyzed.²⁷ The overall percent of positive ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET among patients was forty% (95% CI 19–64) for primary staging and 76% (95% CI 66–85) for BCR. Positive ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET in patients with BCR increased with prePET PSA. For the PSA categories 0 to 0.2, 0.2 to ane, one to 2 and greater than 2 ng/ml 42%, 58%, 76% and 95% of scans, respectively, were positive. Shorter PSADT increased ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET positivity. Summary sensitivity and specificity were both 86% on per patient analysis, and summary sensitivity and specificity were 80% and 97%, respectively, on prelesion analysis.²⁷

A prospective survey of referring physicians showed that PSMA-11 PET/CT resulted in actually implemented management changes in 54 of 101 patients (53%) with prostate cancer and BCR.³²

In a study of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA in 70 patients with BCR later on radical prostatectomy with extended lymph node dissection the sites of recurrent affliction included the prostatic fossa in 27%, pelvic lymph nodes in 14.iii%, the fossa and pelvic lymph nodes in iv.3%, and outside the pelvis in viii.half dozen%.³³ These results show that ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA is able to detect local, regional and distant metastatic disease even in patients with depression PSA levels. The investigational nature of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA also every bit the requirement for a ⁶⁸Ga generator limits its current availability in the United States.

¹⁸F-DCFBC

^eighteenF-DCFBC is a minor molecule PSMA inhibitor which is useful for reliably detecting loftier class (Gleason eight and 9) and larger (one.1 ml or greater) chief tumors.³⁴ Information technology displays petty uptake in benign prostatic hyperplasia and, therefore, it may exist useful to differentiate malignant from nonmalignant prostate tissues.

^xviiiF-DCFPyL Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen

¹⁸F-DCFPyL is a second-generation ¹⁸F labeled PSMA agent. In a small comparative report of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA in fourteen patients with BCR the ¹⁸F-DCFPyL scan was slightly more sensitive with college tumor-to-background ratios than ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA.³⁵ In that study ^xviiiF-DCFPyL detected all of the suspicious lesions detected by ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA plus boosted suspicious lesions in three of 14 patients, indicating loftier sensitivity for ¹⁸F-DCFPyL.

¹⁸F-FDHT

Androgen receptor is over expressed in the bulk of patients with CRPC. ^eighteenF-FDHT, which is chemically similar to dihydrotestosterone, is a ligand for androgen receptor.³⁶ In a clinical trial in patients with avant-garde aggressive prostate cancer ^eighteenF-FDHT showed lower sensitivity for prostate cancer detection than ¹⁸F-FDG (86% vs 97%). All the same, for in vivo estimation of androgen receptor expression in patients on ADT ^eighteenF-FDHT may be the better PET tracer to assess treatment response.³⁷ Overall there are limited clinical data to date on ¹⁸F-FDHT.³⁶ This radiotracer has demonstrated usefulness for assessing androgen receptor blockade with second line antiandrogens.^38,39

^elevenC-Acetate

In a pooled meta-analysis of 23 studies of ¹¹C-acetate PET this radiotracer had suboptimal 75.i% sensitivity to discover master tumors, although information technology had high 93% specificity to identify the location of relapse.⁴⁰ Taking into account the complexity of imaging with this tracer and the short 20.four-infinitesimal half-life of ^xiC, requiring synthesis on site, the availability of ¹¹C-acetate PET for prostate cancer imaging is limited.⁴⁰ The short half-life of the isotope requires a cyclotron on site and only a few centers in the United States have this access.

Medicare Coverage

Only a few NGI PET/CT scans are currently covered by Medicare (Appendix 2). As of early 2018 the CMS withdrew the NOPR (National Oncology PET Registry) program for ^xviiiF-NaF PET/CT. The NOPR program was a collaboration of the ACRIN™ (American College of Radiology Imaging Network), the ACR® (American College of Radiology) and the AMI (Academy of Molecular Imaging) to ensure admission to Medicare reimbursement for certain types of PET.

Whole trunk MRI, which has been used successfully in Europe, has shown good sensitivity and specificity for bone metastases. In the United States in that location are no established CPT codes for reimbursement for whole trunk MRI.⁴¹

Discussion

Next Generation Imaging Potential Clinical Bear upon

Affliction evaluation following unsuccessful initial interventional therapy is disquisitional as salve therapies may exist curative merely may also be associated with morbidity and not beneficial if distant illness exists. Local recurrence of prostate cancer can exist detected by multiparametric MRI with components such equally anatomical T2-weighting and functional imaging (eg diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging).^vii However, local recurrences and distant metastases tin can be meliorate confirmed by NGI.¹⁵

NGI techniques tin place previously undetectable prostate cancer metastases, allowing for consideration of earlier treatment with the potential to impact long-term outcomes. A body of evidence suggests that earlier therapeutic intervention leads to improve outcomes in patients with advanced prostate cancer in the hormone sensitive and castration resistant settings. This has been demonstrated for chemotherapy in CHAARTED (ChemoHormonal Therapy vs Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Affliction in Prostate Cancer), for immunotherapy in Impact (Immunotherapy for Prostate Adenocarcinoma Treatment)/quartile data and for novel androgen receptor targeted agents in LATITUDE (Study of Abiraterone Acetate Plus Low-Dose Prednisone Plus ADT vs ADT Lonely in Newly Diagnosed Participants with High-Run a risk, Metastatic Hormone-Naive Prostate Cancer)/STAMPEDE (Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy).^{ten,eleven,42–45}

Yet, NGI has the potential to enhance outcomes every bit it can allow for before therapy in a patient with low PSA, when theoretical cure or significant tumor reduction may lead to benefits. In 2018 this notion was yet hypothesis generating and, thus, prospective trials are required to evaluate the efficacy and risks of such earlier interventions. However, a recently published, phase ii report in patients with oligorecurrent prostate cancer suggests the benefit of early intervention.^xi

The availability of NGI has the potential to redefine the traditionally accepted stages in prostate cancer progression. Many cases diagnosed as M0 hormone sensitive and M0 CRPC based on traditional scans would at present be potentially upgraded equally M1 hormone sensitive and M1 CRPC using the improved NGI techniques.^46–48 The PROSPER (Safety and Efficacy Study of Enzalutamide in Patients With Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer) and SPARTAN (Study of Apalutamide in Men With Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer) trials now support the utilise of enzalutamide and apalutamide in men with M0 CRPC (too identified as nmCRPC). These studies applied traditional imaging to determine the M0 disease state and nmCRPC, and ascertain progression. It is the RADAR Iii opinion that NGI should be evaluated and could exist useful for both M0 disease states.

RADAR III Grouping Next Generation Imaging Recommendations

The transition to avant-garde prostate cancer is of crucial clinical importance and NGI techniques allow for the early identification of previously undetectable prostate cancer metastases. No single NGI imaging scan can detect all metastases required for clinical decision making. Of all NGI tests considered ^xviiiF-FACBC PET has the best combination of availability, specificity and sensitivity in the United states of america. PSMA PET/CT shows keen diagnostic potential but likely will not exist available for widespread use in the United States for several years, although it existence regularly used in some other nations (eg Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Brazil). It too may be platonic to couple with the development of novel therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals targeted to PSMA. In general RADAR Iii recommends available NGI techniques only the use of these scans varies based on each stage of advanced affliction (fig. 3).^xiii

Figure iii. RADAR Three NGI recommendations.¹³ Asterisk indicates limitations including lack of data and difficulty making comparisons to nonNCI techniques.

The RADAR III grouping recommends FDA approved systemic therapy (sipuleucel-T, cabazitaxel, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, enzalutamide and ²²³Ra) in patients with confirmed M1 CRPC who are clinically deemed fit enough to undergo such treatment.^viii These treatments, which have proved to extend OS in men with mCRPC, require confirmation of metastatic affliction on browse before being initiated.

In early on 2018 the FDA canonical apalutamide, a side by side generation androgen receptor inhibitor, for patients with M0 CRPC. A phase 3 SPARTAN trial of i,207 men with nonmetastatic CRPC and PSADT 10 months or less demonstrated that median metastasis-costless survival was twoscore.5 months with apalutamide compared to xvi.2 months with placebo (p <0.001).^nine Fourth dimension to symptomatic progression was also significantly longer with apalutamide than with placebo.

In that location are also promising new treatments under development for patients with M0 CRPC, including earlier use of enzalutamide based on the positive PROSPER trial, for which expanded approval is currently being sought. Some other amanuensis, darolutamide, has the potential to help delay progression to metastatic disease. It will be of import to consider the inclusion of NGI techniques in clinical trials involving these agents in the M0 setting.

Newly Diagnosed Patients

In patients newly diagnosed with suspected localized prostate cancer RADAR I recommended traditional CT/bone scans in men who had at least 2 of the iii certain criteria, including PSA level greater than 10 ng/ml, Gleason score 7 or greater and palpable affliction (T2b or greater).

RADAR III recommends performing traditional scans with consideration for NGI only if the traditional scans are equivocal or negative and the clinician still suspects disease progression based on various factors. These factors include but are non express to certain criteria, including Gleason score, PSA levels and PSA velocity in untreated patients while patients who run across NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) very high risk or locally advanced/N1 disease criteria should exist considered for NGI at initial diagnosis.⁴²

As an case, consider a healthy 63-year-old male with PSA sixty ng/ml, Gleason score 7 in 10 of 12 cores, and negative ^99mTc bone scan and pelvic CT. We would recommend a NGI evaluation.

Although in that location is currently a lack of level 1 prove to support the apply of NGI, emerging clinical data back up this approach. A recently published, prospective, phase 2 PMSA targeted PET/CT study was able to notice prostate cancer metastases in patients thought to accept clinically localized illness based on traditional imaging, who thereby proceeded to interventional therapy.⁴⁹

Patients with Biochemical Recurrence

In patients with BCR who have been definitively treated RADAR 3 suggests that NGI may be considered in those with PSA 0.v ng/ml or greater subsequently treatment. Patients with PSA less than 0.five ng/ml can be considered based on the specific performance of various NGI techniques. NGI should only be performed if the patient is willing to undergo metastasis directed therapy in the outcome of a positive browse or he is seeking a rationale to initiate systemic therapy. If a browse is not performed, PSA should exist monitored closely and NGI should be reconsidered if PSA rises.

Patients with M0 Castration Resistance

In patients with M0 CRPC RADAR I recommended that a CT/os scan should be performed when PSA is 2 ng/ml or greater. If negative, subsequent scans should exist performed when PSA is 5 ng/ml and at every doubling of PSA thereafter based on PSA testing every 3 months.

RADAR III reviewed NGI for M0 CRPC. NGI could place metastases earlier, which would enable patients to receive treatment with the v agents which have regulatory blessing in the M1 CRPC setting. Although to our knowledge before intervention using this approach has not been validated in prospective clinical trials, show supports the concept that intervening earlier with systemic therapies for M1 CRPC (sipuleucel-T) and for M0 CRPC (apalutamide) when the disease brunt is lower may have a positive impact in some patients.

RADAR Three suggests followup imaging every 6 to 12 months or more than frequently based on less than 6-month PSADT and/or symptoms in patients undergoing therapy for M0 CRPC. If traditional imaging fails to observe metastatic affliction, NGI tin can exist performed only if approved therapies in the M1 infinite are being considered. RADAR III cautions confronting ceasing therapy for a PSA rising lonely.

Given the recent approval of apalutamide for M0 disease, the value of NGI in this setting has yet to be determined. Thus, NGI should only be considered when disease progresses and M1 illness treatments are being considered.

Patients with M1 Prostate Cancer Undergoing Treatment

RADAR 3 expanded the original RADAR I recommendations to include additional guidance on imaging techniques for patients with M1 illness. The expanded recommendations include imaging using traditional scans and moving on to NGI only if the traditional scans are negative and the clinician still suspects disease progression based on at to the lowest degree ane of certain factors, including with every doubling of PSA since the previous image was obtained, every vi to 9 months in the absence of a PSA ascent, or a modify in symptomatology or performance status.

The goal of scanning in the M1 setting is to ostend affliction progression to inform clinical decision making. If disease progression is confirmed on scan, RADAR III recommends because therapeutic layering. Therapeutic layering is different from combination therapy, in which 2 or more therapies are initiated simultaneously. As defined by the RADAR 2 Group, therapeutic layering represents a clinical point at which 1 or more amanuensis(s) are added to an existing therapy. In CRPC all handling interventions are technically therapy layering since agents are added to the foundation of ADT. The RADAR Ii written report provides specific recommendations on therapeutic layering in patients with M1 CRPC.^fourteen

To our knowledge the utilize of NGI regarding the treatment response remains to be definitively established. Limitations include a comparison of NGI and nonNGI techniques also as the significance of NGI semiquantitative analysis.

Considerations for Nomenclature Change

The heterogeneous nature of prostate cancer requires meliorate terminology which more clearly defines the response to specific therapies. As the disease has continued to evolve biologically during the years in a much different manner, our recommendation is to rename CRPC every bit ERPC.

Clinicians create an iatrogenic illness state by treating men with ADT who accept rising PSA subsequently local treatment. Once men show progression later ADT, endocrine resistance has adult and, if no metastasis is detected, they are categorized with M0 disease or nmCRPC. The original intent of the term CRPC was to draw metastatic disease while ADT is failing. Consequently M0 CRPC was added to categorize these men.

Ii major advances have occurred which propose the need to redefine this entire disease state. The starting time advance is NGI, which offers the opportunity to more than accurately assess disease progression. Secondly two trials have demonstrated a significant do good to newer third generation antiandrogen in the nonmetastatic endocrine resistant state. RADAR III believes that these events dictate the need to reassess and develop renewed nomenclature and guidelines.

Our recommendations are to now name these states as ERPC instead of CRPC. The rationale for this terminology was suggested several years agone.⁵⁰ In that location are sure RADAR Three guidelines for this ERPC space. 1) Cases showing PSA or other signs of progression after adequate ADT of any stage of prostate cancer should be labeled as ERPC. 2) Cases of progression later on adequate ADT of biochemical progression and negative conventional imaging should be labeled nmERPC (nonmetastatic conventional imaging), nmERPC* (nonmetastatic *NGI performed and since nmERPC* nonmetastatic by NGI). 3) A similar system should exist used for positive imaging mERPC, mERPC* (metastatic past NGI) for metastatic illness. Nosotros believe that these guidelines would better stratify men for hereafter evaluations.

In M1 illness the results of conventional scans may differ from those of NGI based on the dynamic and changing biology of the prostate cancer. Further caput-to-caput studies are warranted to investigate the unlike implications of appropriate therapeutic approaches.

Conclusions

While traditional CT, MRI and bone scans still have a function in initially diagnosing and/or staging prostate cancer, NGI modalities are more sensitive to visualize avant-garde prostate cancer. These new scans are recommended in select patients in whom ambitious intervention may be indicated earlier. Currently ^eighteenF-FACBC PET is the NGI technique with the best combination of availability, specificity and sensitivity in the Usa. PSMA PET/CT shows diagnostic potential but it likely will not be available for widespread use in the United States for several years.

Our strongest recommendation for NGI utilise is in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. This is where the information are strongest and the likelihood of site directed therapy is greatest in patients who are interested in such strategies. We recognize the lack of current efficacy and safety data merely the purpose of a consensus written report is to provide guidance in an surface area where clinical determination making is less than sure. Thus, we believe that the greatest potential impact to change therapy and improve patient outcomes with NGI is in a setting where the reintroduction of local therapy with or without systemic therapy has the greatest potential.

Acknowledgment

Editing, referencing and graphic back up were provided past Fallon Medica LLC.

Appendix 1.

Phases of prostate cancer disease states

Prostate Cancer Phase	References
Localized prostate cancer	Mena et al2
Biochemically recurrent (BCR)/persistent disease after local therapy
Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (M0CRPC) or nmCRPC	Tombal,3 and Anantharaman and Small4
Metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (M1)	Hoimes and Kelly5
Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)
Treatment emergent neuroendocrine prostate cancer	Epstein et alhalf dozen

Appendix ii.

Medicare coverage for several NGI techniques

PET/CT Type	Medicare Coverage
18F-FACBC	Yes
11C-choline	Yes (express)*
18F-NaF	No
eighteenF-FDG	Aye (subsequent treatment strategy)
68Ga-PSMA	No

References

• 1. American Cancer Order: Cancer Facts & Figures . 2018. Atlanta, Georgia: American Cancer Society 2018. Available at https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2018/cancer-facts-and-figures-2018.pdf. Accessed March xx, 2018. Google Scholar
• 2. : Clinical bear upon of PSMA-based ^eighteenF-DCFBC PET/CT imaging in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer later primary local therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 45: iv. Google Scholar
• iii. : Not-metastatic CRPC and asymptomatic metastatic CRPC: which treatment for which patient? Ann Oncol, suppl. , 2012; 23: x251. Google Scholar
• 4. : Tackling non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: special considerations in treatment. Practiced Rev Anticancer Ther 2017; 17: 625. Google Scholar
• five. : Redefining hormone resistance in prostate cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2010; 2: 107. Google Scholar
• 6. : Proposed morphologic classification of prostate cancer with neuroendocrine differentiation. Am J Surg Pathol 2014; 38: 756. Google Scholar
• 7. : Imaging locally advanced, recurrent, and metastatic prostate cancer: a review. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3: 1415. Google Scholar
• 8. : Treating patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer: a comprehensive review of available therapies. J Urol 2015; 194: 1537. Link, Google Scholar
• 9. : Apalutamide treatment and metastasis-gratuitous survival in prostate cancer. North Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1408. Google Scholar
• ten. : Lower baseline prostate-specific antigen is associated with a greater overall survival benefit from sipuleucel-T in the Immunotherapy for Prostate Adenocarcinoma Treatment (IMPACT) trial. Urology 2013; 81: 1297. Google Scholar
• 11. : Surveillance or metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer recurrence: a prospective, randomized, multicenter phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36: 446. Google Scholar
• 12. : Predicting time from metastasis to overall survival in castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from SEARCH. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017; 15: threescore. Google Scholar
• 13. : Challenges and recommendations for early identification of metastatic disease in prostate cancer. Urology 2014; 83: 664. Google Scholar
• 14. : The function of therapeutic layering in optimizing treatment for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (Prostate Cancer Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence Two). Urology 2017; 104: 150. Google Scholar
• fifteen. : Prostate cancer-specific PET radiotracers: a review on the clinical utility in recurrent disease. Pract Radiat Oncol 2018; eight: 28. Google Scholar
• 16. : PET/CT is a cost-effective tool against cancer: synergy supersedes singularity. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016; 43: 1749. Google Scholar
• 17. Food and Drug Administration: FDA News Release: FDA approves new diagnostic imaging agent to detect recurrent prostate cancer. May 27, 2016. Bachelor at https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm503920.htm. Accessed March 20, 2018. Google Scholar
• 18. : Putative transport machinery and intracellular fate of trans-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutanecarboxylic acid in homo prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2011; 52: 822. Google Scholar
• nineteen. : Initial feel with the radiotracer anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acrid with PET/CT in prostate carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 56. Google Scholar
• 20. : Comparative performance of PET tracers in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: a disquisitional analysis of literature. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2014; 4: 580. Google Scholar
• 21. : (eighteen)F-FACBC (anti1-amino-3-(18)F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid) versus (eleven)C-choline PET/CT in prostate cancer relapse: results of a prospective trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016; 43: 1601. Google Scholar
• 22. : C11-acetate and F-18 FDG PET for men with prostate cancer bone metastases: relative findings and response to therapy. Clin Nucl Med 2011; 36: 192. Google Scholar
• 23. : Multisite experience of the safety, detection rate and diagnostic operation of fluciclovine (¹⁸F) positron emission tomography/computerized tomography imaging in the staging of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. J Urol 2017; 197: 676. Link, Google Scholar
• 24. : PET imaging of prostate cancer using ¹¹C-acetate. PET Clin 2009; four: 163. Google Scholar
• 25. : The kinetics and reproducibility of ^xviiiF-sodium fluoride for oncology using current PET camera engineering science. J Nucl Med 2012; 53: 1175. Google Scholar
• 26. : Quantitative assessment of early [¹⁸F]sodium fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography response to handling in men with metastatic prostate cancer to bone. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 2829. Google Scholar
• 27. : Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive ⁶⁸Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-assay. Eur Urol 2016; lxx: 926. Google Scholar
• 28. : ⁶⁸Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in advanced prostate cancer: current state and future trends. Prostate Int 2017; 5: 125. Google Scholar
• 29. : The accuracy of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET/CT in primary lymph node staging in loftier-take a chance prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017; 44: 1806. Google Scholar
• 30. : Diagnostic efficacy of ⁶⁸gallium-PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 sequent patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2016; 195: 1436. Link, Google Scholar
• 31. : Clinical performance of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-xi PET/MRI for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 45: 20. Google Scholar
• 32. : Touch on of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on the management of prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence. J Nucl Med 2018; 59: 434. Google Scholar
• 33. : (68) Ga-PSMA has a loftier detection rate of prostate cancer recurrence outside the prostatic fossa in patients being considered for salvage radiations treatment. BJU Int 2016; 117: 732. Google Scholar
• 34. : ¹⁸F-DCFBC PET/CT for PSMA-based detection and label of primary prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2015; 56: 1003. Google Scholar
• 35. : Comparison of [¹⁸F]DCFPyL and [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC for PSMA-PET imaging in patients with relapsed prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 2015; 17: 575. Google Scholar
• 36. : Positron emission tomography (PET) in primary prostate cancer staging and adventure assessment. Transl Androl Urol 2017; 6: 413. Google Scholar
• 37. : Tumor localization of 16beta-18F-fluoro-5alphadihydrotestosterone versus 18F-FDG in patients with progressive, metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 366. Google Scholar
• 38. : Prostate cancer imaging with novel PET tracers. Curr Urol Rep 2016; 17: 18. Google Scholar
• 39. : Current applications of PET imaging of sexual practice hormone receptors with a fluorinated counterpart of estradiol or of testosterone. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015; 59: 4. Google Scholar
• twoscore. : Application of C-eleven-acetate positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging in prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. BJU Int 2013; 112: 1062. Google Scholar
• 41. : Role of MRI in the diagnosis and direction of prostate cancer. Future Oncol 2015; 11: 2757. Google Scholar
• 42. National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®), Prostate Cancer. Version ane.2018, February 14, 2018 . Fort Washington, Pennsylvania: National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2018. Available at https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2018. Google Scholar
• 43. : Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 737. Google Scholar
• 44. : Abiraterone plus prednisone in metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. North Engl J Med 2017; 377: 352. Google Scholar
• 45. : Abiraterone for prostate cancer non previously treated with hormone therapy. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 338. Google Scholar
• 46. : Androgen-deprivation therapy solitary versus combined with radiation therapy or chemotherapy for nonlocalized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl 2016; eighteen: 102. Google Scholar
• 47. : Efficacy and safe of combined androgen impecuniousness therapy (ADT) and docetaxel compared with ADT lonely for metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS I 2016; 11: e0157660. Google Scholar
• 48. : The evolutionary history of lethal metastatic prostate cancer. Nature 2015; 520: 353. Google Scholar
• 49. : Prostate specific membrane antigen targeted ^xviiiF-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for the preoperative staging of high run a risk prostate cancer: results of a prospective, phase II, single heart study. J Urol 2018; 199: 126. Link, Google Scholar
• 50. : Castration-resistant prostate cancer: descriptive however pejorative? J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: e408. Google Scholar

© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Inquiry, Inc.

stanekhastrout89.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.164

Share this post