Head-to-head Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography and Conventional Imaging Modalities for Initial Staging of Intermediate- to High-risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Context: Whether prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) should replace conventional imaging modalities (CIM) for initial staging of intermediate-high risk prostate cancer (PCa) requires definitive evidence on their relative diagnostic abilities.

Objective: To perform head-to-head comparisons of PSMA-PET and CIM including multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), computed tomography (CT) and bone scan (BS) for upfront staging of tumour, nodal, and bone metastasis.

Evidence acquisition: A search of the PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Scopus databases was conducted from inception to December 2021. Only studies in which patients underwent both PSMA-PET and CIM and imaging was referenced against histopathology or composite reference standards were included. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) checklist and its extension for comparative reviews (QUADAS-C). Pairwise comparisons of the sensitivity and specificity of PSMA-PET versus CIM were performed by adding imaging modality as a covariate to bivariate mixed-effects meta-regression models. The likelihood ratio test was applied to determine whether statistically significant differences existed.

Evidence synthesis: A total of 31 studies (2431 patients) were included. PSMA-PET/MRI was more sensitive than mpMRI for detection of extra-prostatic extension (78.7% versus 52.9%) and seminal vesicle invasion (66.7% versus 51.0%). For nodal staging, PSMA-PET was more sensitive and specific than mpMRI (73.7% versus 38.9%, 97.5% versus 82.6%) and CT (73.2% versus 38.5%, 97.8% versus 83.6%). For bone metastasis staging, PSMA-PET was more sensitive and specific than BS with or without single-photon emission computerised tomography (98.0% versus 73.0%, 96.2% versus 79.1%). A time interval between imaging modalities >1 month was identified as a source of heterogeneity across all nodal staging analyses.

Conclusions: Direct comparisons revealed that PSMA-PET significantly outperforms CIM, which suggests that PSMA-PET should be used as a first-line approach for the initial staging of PCa.

Patient summary: We reviewed direct comparisons of the ability of a scan method called PSMA-PET (prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography) and current imaging methods to detect the spread of prostate cancer outside the prostate gland. We found that PSMA-PET is more accurate for detection of the spread of prostate cancer to adjacent tissue, nearby lymph nodes, and bones.

Keywords: Direct comparison; Intermediate to high risk; Meta-analysis; Positron emission tomography; Primary staging; Prostate cancer; Prostate-specific membrane antigen; Systematic review.