Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Dec;51(1):281-294.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-023-06392-0. Epub 2023 Aug 19.

The diagnostic accuracy of radiolabeled PSMA-ligand PET for tumour staging in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients compared to histopathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Farid Gossili  1   2 , Anna Winther Mogensen  3   4 , Tea Caroline Konnerup  5 , Kirsten Bouchelouche  6 , Ian Alberts  7 , Ali Afshar-Oromieh  7 , Helle D Zacho  3   4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The diagnostic accuracy of radiolabeled PSMA-ligand PET for tumour staging in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients compared to histopathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Farid Gossili et al. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023 Dec.

Abstract

Purpose: The current clinical recommendations posit the deployment of specific approved radiolabeled prostate-specific membrane antigen-ligand positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) for detecting metastatic prostate cancer during primary staging. Nevertheless, the precise efficacy of such ligands in localizing intraprostatic tumours (index tumour) and T-staging is not well established. Consequently, the objective of this inquiry is to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy of PSMA-PET in the tumour staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer by means of a meta-analysis that integrates studies utilizing histological confirmation as the reference standard.

Methods: In this study, we conducted a systematic literature search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases using a predefined collection of search terms. These terms included 'PSMA PET', 'primary staging', and 'prostate cancer'. Subsequently, two independent reviewers evaluated all the studies based on predetermined inclusion criteria, extracted pertinent data, and assessed the quality of evidence. Any disparities were resolved by a third reviewer. A random effects Sidik-Jonkman model was applied to conduct a meta-analysis and estimate the diagnostic accuracy on a per-patient basis, along with 95% confidence intervals. Moreover, an appraisal regarding the likelihood of publication bias and the impact of small-study effects was performed utilizing both Egger's test and a graphical examination of the funnel plot.

Results: The present analysis comprised a total of twenty-three scientific papers encompassing 969 patients and involved their analysis by both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The results of this study demonstrated that the estimated diagnostic accuracy of PSMA PET/CT and PSMA PET/MRI, for the detection of intraprostatic tumours, regardless of the type of PSMA-ligand, was 86% (95% CI: 76-96%) and 97% (95% CI: 94-100%), respectively. Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy for the detection of extraprostatic extension (EPE) was 73% (95% CI: 64-82%) and 77% (95% CI: 69-85%), while the diagnostic accuracy for the detection of seminal vesicle involvement (SVI) was 87% (95% CI: 80-93) and 90% (95% CI: 82-99%), respectively.

Conclusion: The present investigation has demonstrated that PSMA PET/MRI surpasses currently recommended multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in terms of diagnostic accuracy as inferred from a notable data trajectory, whereas PSMA-PET/CT exhibited comparable diagnostic accuracy for intraprostatic tumour detection and T-staging compared to mpMRI. Nevertheless, the analysis has identified certain potential limitations, such as small-study effects and a potential for publication bias, which may impact the overall conclusions drawn from this study.

Keywords: Meta-analysis; PET/CT; PET/MRI; PSMA; Primary staging; Prostate cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Global Burden of Disease Cancer C, Kocarnik JM, Compton K, Dean FE, Fu W, Gaw BL, et al. Cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life years for 29 cancer groups from 2010 to 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8:420-44 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6987
    1. Fendler WP, Eiber M, Beheshti M, Bomanji J, Calais J, Ceci F, et al. PSMA PET/CT: joint EANM procedure guideline/SNMMI procedure standard for prostate cancer imaging 2.0. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-06089-w .
    1. Schaeffer EM, Srinivas S, Adra N, An Y, Barocas D, Bitting R, et al. NCCN Guidelines(R) insights: prostate cancer, version 1.2023. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20:1288–98. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2022.0063 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79:243–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 . - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources