% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Kind:275254,
      author       = {F. Kind and A.-C. Eder$^*$ and C. A. Jilg and P. E.
                      Hartrampf and P. T. Meyer$^*$ and J. Ruf$^*$ and K.
                      Michalski},
      title        = {{P}rognostic {V}alue of {T}umor {V}olume {A}ssessment on
                      {PSMA} {PET} {A}fter 177{L}u-{PSMA} {R}adioligand {T}herapy
                      {E}valuated by {PSMA} {PET}/{CT} {C}onsensus {S}tatement and
                      {RECIP} 1.0.},
      journal      = {Journal of nuclear medicine},
      volume       = {64},
      number       = {4},
      issn         = {0097-9058},
      address      = {New York, NY},
      publisher    = {Soc.},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2023-00701},
      pages        = {605 - 610},
      year         = {2023},
      abstract     = {Quantitative evaluation of prostate-specific membrane
                      antigen (PSMA)-targeting PET/CT remains challenging but is
                      urgently needed for the use of standardized PET-based
                      response criteria, such as the PSMA PET/CT consensus
                      statement or Response Evaluation Criteria in PSMA PET/CT
                      (RECIP 1.0). A recent study evaluated the prognostic value
                      of whole-body tumor volume using a semiautomatic method
                      relying on a $50\%$ threshold of lesion SUVmax (PSMATV50).
                      In the present study, we analyzed the suitability of this
                      approach comparing 18F-PSMA-1007 with 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT
                      scans and the potential of PSMATV50 for the prediction of
                      overall survival (OS) in patients before 177Lu-PSMA
                      radioligand therapy (RLT). Moreover, PSMATV50 was integrated
                      into the PSMA PET/CT consensus statement as well as RECIP
                      1.0, and the prognostic value of these response
                      classification systems was compared. Methods: This
                      retrospective study included 70 patients with metastatic
                      castration-resistant prostate cancer undergoing PSMA RLT.
                      Thirty-three patients were monitored by 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT,
                      and 37 patients by 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT. PET/CT scans before
                      (baseline) and at the end of PSMA RLT after 2-4 cycles
                      (follow-up) were separately analyzed by 2 readers. PSMATV50
                      at baseline and its change at the time of follow-up
                      (ΔPSMATV50, expressed as a ratio) were correlated with OS
                      using Cox proportional-hazards regression. The results of
                      both subgroups were compared. The integration of ΔPSMATV50
                      in existing response classification systems was evaluated.
                      To assess and compare the discriminatory strength of these
                      classification systems, Gönen and Heller concordance
                      probability estimates were calculated. Results: PSMATV50
                      determination was technically feasible in all examinations.
                      A higher PSMATV50 at baseline and a higher ΔPSMATV50 were
                      strongly associated with a shorter OS for both 68Ga-PSMA-11
                      (PSMATV50: hazard ratio [HR] of 1.29 $[95\%$ CI, 1.05-1.55],
                      P = 0.009; ΔPSMATV50: HR of 1.83 $[95\%$ CI, 1.08-3.09], P
                      = 0.024) and 18F-PSMA-1007 (PSMATV50: HR of 1.84 $[95\%$ CI,
                      1.13-2.99], P = 0.014; ΔPSMATV50: HR of 1.23 $[95\%$ CI,
                      1.04-1.51], P = 0.03). Response assessment provided high
                      discriminatory power for OS for the PSMA PET/CT consensus
                      statement (concordance probability estimate, 0.73) as well
                      as RECIP 1.0 (concordance probability estimate, 0.74).
                      Conclusion: PSMATV50 and ΔPSMATV50 proved to be predictive
                      of OS not only for 68Ga-PSMA-11 but also for 18F-PSMA-1007
                      PET/CT scans. Subsequent integration of ΔPSMATV50 into the
                      PSMA PET/CT consensus statement and RECIP 1.0 provided
                      equally high prognostic value for both classification
                      systems.},
      keywords     = {Male / Humans / Prognosis / Positron Emission Tomography
                      Computed Tomography: methods / Retrospective Studies /
                      Treatment Outcome / Prostate-Specific Antigen / Tumor Burden
                      / Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant: diagnostic
                      imaging / Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant:
                      radiotherapy / Dipeptides: adverse effects / Heterocyclic
                      Compounds, 1-Ring: adverse effects / Lutetium / PSMA PET/CT
                      (Other) / PSMATV50 (Other) / RECIP 1.0 (Other) / radioligand
                      therapy (Other) / response assessment (Other) / gallium 68
                      PSMA-11 (NLM Chemicals) / Prostate-Specific Antigen (NLM
                      Chemicals) / Dipeptides (NLM Chemicals) / Heterocyclic
                      Compounds, 1-Ring (NLM Chemicals) / Lutetium (NLM
                      Chemicals)},
      cin          = {FR01},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)FR01-20160331},
      pnm          = {899 - ohne Topic (POF4-899)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:36302658},
      doi          = {10.2967/jnumed.122.264489},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/275254},
}