Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
Department of Urology, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy.
J Urol. 2021 Feb;205(2):356-369. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001369. Epub 2020 Sep 16.
PURPOSE: Restaging of prostate cancer in patients with biochemical recurrence after radical treatment remains a challenging clinical scenario as current imaging modalities are suboptimal. To date, prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography seems to represent a very promising diagnostic tool in this setting. Therefore, we evaluated the detection rate of several positron emission tomography/computerized tomography prostate specific membrane antigen based tracers in the restaging of prostate cancer in patients with biochemical recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: According to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, a systematic search was performed across MEDLINE®, Embase® and Web of Science™. PICOS (Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study Type), criteria consisted of P: patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and/or radiation therapy as primary treatment; I: studies using gallium-68-prostate specific membrane antigen-11, gallium-68-prostate specific membrane antigen inhibitor for imaging and therapy, gallium-68-trishydroxypyridinone-prostate specific membrane antigen, copper-64-prostate specific membrane antigen-617, fluorine-18-DCFPyL or fluorine-18-prostate specific membrane antigen-1007; C: no control group or positron emission tomography/computerized tomography comparative studies; O: patient specific overall detection rate; and S: retrospective/prospective studies. A meta-analysis of proportions and a network meta-analysis were performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran Q and I statistics. Quality was assessed by QUADAS-2 (University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom). Funnel plots and Egger test were used for publication biases. RESULTS: A total of 43 studies including 5,832 patients were identified and included in the analysis. An overall detection rate of 74.1% (95% CI 69.2%-78.5%) was found, with no differences between tracers. The overall detection rates were 33.7%, 50.0%, 62.8%, 73.1% and 91.7% % in prostate specific antigen subgroups of less than 0.2 ng/ml, 0.2 to 0.49 ng/ml, 0.50 to 0.99 ng/ml, 1.0 to 1.99 ng/ml, and 2.0 ng/ml or greater, respectively. No difference between tracers was found according to prostate specific antigen doubling time or prostate specific antigen velocity. No tracer proved superior to the others through network meta-analysis. High heterogeneity and inconsistency were found across all analyses. Included studies showed a low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for prostate cancer restaging in patients with biochemical recurrence achieves best detection rates (over 70%) if prostate specific antigen is below 1 ng/ml. At lower prostate specific antigen levels the detection rate of prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography is lower (33.7% for levels below 0.2 ng/ml and 50% for levels 0.2 to 0.49 ng/ml), despite being better than "older" tracers such as choline based positron emission tomography or computerized tomography/bone scintigraphy. Furthermore, no prostate specific membrane antigen tracer can be currently considered superior to others. Further studies are needed to better define the diagnostic performance and role of these imaging techniques.
目的:在接受根治性治疗后出现生化复发的前列腺癌患者中进行肿瘤分期,目前的影像学方法并不理想,因此仍然是一个具有挑战性的临床情况。迄今为止,前列腺特异性膜抗原正电子发射断层扫描/计算机断层扫描似乎是该领域非常有前途的诊断工具。因此,我们评估了几种前列腺特异性膜抗原正电子发射断层扫描/计算机断层扫描示踪剂在生化复发患者肿瘤分期中的检测率。
材料和方法:根据 PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)声明,对 MEDLINE®、Embase®和 Web of Science™进行了系统搜索。PICOS(患者、干预、对照、结局、研究类型)标准包括 P:接受根治性前列腺切除术和/或放射治疗作为主要治疗的生化复发患者;I:使用镓-68-前列腺特异性膜抗原-11、镓-68-前列腺特异性膜抗原抑制剂进行成像和治疗、镓-68-三羟吡啶酮-前列腺特异性膜抗原、铜-64-前列腺特异性膜抗原-617、氟-18-DCFPyL 或氟-18-前列腺特异性膜抗原-1007 的研究;C:无对照组或正电子发射断层扫描/计算机断层扫描比较研究;O:患者特异性总体检测率;S:回顾性/前瞻性研究。对比例进行了荟萃分析和网络荟萃分析。使用 Cochran Q 和 I 统计评估异质性。通过 QUADAS-2(英国布里斯托大学,布里斯托,英国)评估质量。使用漏斗图和 Egger 检验评估发表偏倚。
结果:共确定了 43 项研究,包括 5832 名患者,并纳入了分析。发现总体检测率为 74.1%(95%CI 69.2%-78.5%),不同示踪剂之间无差异。在前列腺特异性抗原亚组中,前列腺特异性抗原小于 0.2ng/ml、0.2-0.49ng/ml、0.50-0.99ng/ml、1.0-1.99ng/ml 和 2.0ng/ml 或更高时,分别为 33.7%、50.0%、62.8%、73.1%和 91.7%。根据前列腺特异性抗原倍增时间或前列腺特异性抗原速度,示踪剂之间无差异。通过网络荟萃分析,没有一种示踪剂比其他示踪剂更优越。所有分析均存在高度异质性和不一致性。纳入的研究显示出较低的偏倚风险。
结论:前列腺特异性膜抗原正电子发射断层扫描/计算机断层扫描在生化复发患者中的前列腺癌分期中可获得最佳检测率(超过 70%),如果前列腺特异性抗原低于 1ng/ml。在较低的前列腺特异性抗原水平下,前列腺特异性膜抗原正电子发射断层扫描/计算机断层扫描的检测率较低(0.2ng/ml 以下为 33.7%,0.2-0.49ng/ml 为 50%),尽管优于“旧”示踪剂,如胆碱正电子发射断层扫描或计算机断层扫描/骨闪烁扫描。此外,目前还不能认为任何一种前列腺特异性膜抗原示踪剂都优于其他示踪剂。需要进一步的研究来更好地定义这些成像技术的诊断性能和作用。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-12-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-10-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-9-12
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021-8
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-6
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025-7-9
Cancers (Basel). 2024-12-21
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023-7-5