MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic value of FDG, PSMA, and DOTATATE uptake on PET imaging in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

2024· article· en· W4391303703 on OpenAlexaff
Frédéric Pouliot, Fred Saad, Étienne Rousseau, Patrick O. Richard, Atefeh Zamanian, Stephan Probst, Éric Lévesque, Vincent Castonguay, Nicolas Marcoux, Daniel Juneau, Michele Lodde, Jean‐Baptiste Lattouf, François-Alexandre Buteau, Zineb Hamilou, Michel Pavic, Jean‐François Castilloux, Guillaume F. Bouvet, Amélie Têtu, Brigitte Guérin, Jean‐Mathieu Beauregard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHôtel-Dieu de QuébecJewish General HospitalHôpital FleurimontUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerOncologyCancerPositron emission tomographyPet imagingInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

31 Background: In mCRPC, fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT are often used in combination for selecting patients for PSMA-radioligand therapy (PSMA-RLT). Few studies have specifically assessed the prognostic value of FDG+/PSMA- lesions, which exclude patients from PSMA-RLT. Also, little is known about the significance of somatostatin receptor expression, a potential biomarker of neuroendocrine differentiation of mCRPC, which can be assessed with DOTATATE-PET/CT. 3TMPO is a prospective study in progressing mCRPC patients who were imaged with up to 3 PET tracers. Here, we report on patient’s overall survival (OS), with respect to the presence of FDG+/PSMA- and DOTATATE+ lesions. Methods: In 3TMPO (NCT04000776, protocol in PMID 34674367), all patients had 68Ga-PSMA-617 and 18F-FDG PET/CT scans. A 68Ga-DOTATATE scan was ordered if an FDG+/PSMA- lesion was found. For all tracers, positivity was defined as lesion SUVpeak being 1.5x higher than liver SUVmean. Kaplan-Meier with log-rank test was used to assess the difference in OS between groups. Cox regression model was used to quantify the effect of factors predictive of OS. Results: The median [95% CI] OS of the 98 enrolled patients was 10.2 [8.5-11.8] mo. At least one FDG+/PSMA- lesion was found in 45 (45.9%) patients and their OS was shorter than that of the others: 5.6 [4.3-6.9] vs. not reached (p=0.0001). Six (16.2%) of 37 patients who underwent 68Ga-DOTATATE-PET had ≥1 DOTATATE+ lesion and their OS was shorter than that of patients without a DOTATATE+ lesion: 3.0 [2.2-3.7] vs. 6.4 [1.6-11.1] mo. (p=0.0004). Characteristics significantly associated with worse OS were ECOG, ISUP grade, number of metastases, number of lines of therapy, presence of visceral metastases, FDG and PSMA molecular tumor volumes (MTV) (p<0.05). In a multivariate analysis adjusted for the number of metastases and of treatment lines, the presence of an FDG+/PSMA- lesion increased the risk of death (HR [95% CI]=2.4 [1.4-4.3], p=0.002), and this was also significant after adjusting for both PSMA and FDG-MTV (HR [95% CI]=2.9 [1.4-5.8], p=0.003). Conclusions: mCRPC patients harboring FDG+/PSMA- lesion(s) had a shorter OS than those who did not, and their prognosis was even poorer if they also had DOTATATE+ lesion(s). Upfront FDG/PSMA-PET followed by DOTATATE-PET might help clinicians to guide patient towards palliative care vs. further systemic therapy, including PSMA-RLT. Clinical trial information: NCT04000776 .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.387 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→