Use of 18F-NaF PET in the staging of skeletal metastases of newly diagnosed, high-risk prostate cancer patients: a nationwide cohort study

Objective To determine whether preoperative staging of high-risk prostate cancer with 18F-sodium-fluoride (18F-NaF) positron emission tomography (PET) reduces the risk of skeletal metastases. Design Nationwide, population-based cohort study using real-world data. Setting The study used national health registries, including all sites in Denmark from 2011 to 2018. Participants Newly diagnosed high-risk prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy from 2011 to 2018. Patients were stratified into two groups according to the preoperative imaging modality of either 18F-NaF PET or bone scintigraphy. Main outcome measures The risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) as a proxy for skeletal metastases following radical prostatectomy. The secondary endpoint was overall survival. Results Between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2018, 4183 high-risk patients underwent radical prostatectomy. Of these patients, 807 (19.3%) underwent 18F-NaF PET and 2161 (51.7%) underwent bone scintigraphy. The remaining 30% were examined by a different imaging method or did not undergo imaging. Using the inverse probability of treatment weighting to control potential confounding, the HR of experiencing an SRE for patients in the 18F-NaF PET group versus the bone scintigraphy group was 1.15 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.54). The 3-year survival rates were 97.4% (95% CI 96.1 to 98.7) and 97.1% (95% CI 96.4 to 97.9) for patients receiving 18F-NaF PET and bone scintigraphy, respectively. Conclusion Patients with high-risk prostate cancer undergoing preoperative staging with 18F-NaF PET did not display a lower risk of developing SREs after prostatectomy compared with patients undergoing bone scintigraphy. The survival rates were similar between the two groups.

[1]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries , 2021, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[2]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. , 2020, European urology.

[3]  H. Sørensen,et al.  Existing Data Sources in Clinical Epidemiology: Laboratory Information System Databases in Denmark , 2020, Clinical epidemiology.

[4]  N. Lawrentschuk,et al.  Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study , 2020, The Lancet.

[5]  Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir Schmidt,et al.  The Danish health care system and epidemiological research: from health care contacts to database records , 2019, Clinical epidemiology.

[6]  Elisabetta Lalumera,et al.  Randomized Controlled Trials for Diagnostic Imaging: Conceptual and Pratical Problems , 2019 .

[7]  O. Cussenot,et al.  Impact of sodium 18F-fluoride PET/CT, 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT and whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI on the management of patients with prostate cancer suspicious for metastasis: a prospective multicentre study , 2018, World Journal of Urology.

[8]  Lucy Hanna,et al.  Intended Versus Inferred Treatment After 18F-Fluoride PET Performed for Evaluation of Osseous Metastatic Disease in the National Oncologic PET Registry , 2017, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[9]  D. Schuster,et al.  Change in Salvage Radiotherapy Management Based on Guidance With FACBC (Fluciclovine) PET/CT in Postprostatectomy Recurrent Prostate Cancer , 2017, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[10]  S. Friis,et al.  The Danish Prostate Cancer Database , 2016, Clinical epidemiology.

[11]  E. Kauppila,et al.  Prospective evaluation of planar bone scintigraphy, SPECT, SPECT/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT and whole body 1.5T MRI, including DWI, for the detection of bone metastases in high risk breast and prostate cancer patients: SKELETA clinical trial , 2016, Acta oncologica.

[12]  Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir Schmidt,et al.  The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential , 2015, Clinical epidemiology.

[13]  Jonathan W. Bartlett,et al.  Multiple Imputation of Covariates by Substantive-model Compatible Fully Conditional Specification , 2015 .

[14]  Henrik Toft Sørensen,et al.  The Danish Civil Registration System as a tool in epidemiology , 2014, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[15]  H. Schild,et al.  Whole-body SPECT/CT for bone scintigraphy: diagnostic value and effect on patient management in oncological patients , 2013, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[16]  J. Sörensen,et al.  Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI compared with (18)F-NaF PET/CT for detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate carcinoma. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  H. Sørensen,et al.  Quality of urological cancer diagnoses in the Danish National Registry of Patients , 2012, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[18]  R. Hicks,et al.  Not-So-Random Errors: Randomized Controlled Trials Are Not the Only Evidence of the Value of PET , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[19]  S. Sauerland,et al.  Randomized Controlled Trials on PET: A Systematic Review of Topics, Design, and Quality , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[20]  E. Mittra,et al.  Prospective Evaluation of 99mTc MDP Scintigraphy, 18F NaF PET/CT, and 18F FDG PET/CT for Detection of Skeletal Metastases , 2012, Molecular Imaging and Biology.

[21]  O. Cussenot,et al.  Fluorocholine (18F) and sodium fluoride (18F) PET/CT in the detection of prostate cancer: prospective comparison of diagnostic performance determined by masked reading. , 2011, The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR), [and] Section of the Society of....

[22]  K. Helweg-larsen.  The Danish Register of Causes of Death , 2011, Scandinavian journal of public health.

[23]  C. Pedersen,et al.  The Danish Civil Registration System , 2011, Scandinavian journal of public health.

[24]  Marianne Lundkjær Gjerstorff,et al.  The Danish Cancer Registry , 2011, Scandinavian journal of public health.

[25]  Timothy L Lash,et al.  Existing data sources for clinical epidemiology: the Danish National Pathology Registry and Data Bank , 2010, Clinical epidemiology.

[26]  Henrik Toft Sørensen,et al.  Skeletal related events, bone metastasis and survival of prostate cancer: a population based cohort study in Denmark (1999 to 2007). , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[27]  A. Dirksen,et al.  Preoperative staging of lung cancer with combined PET-CT. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  W. Oyen,et al.  Improved Selection of Patients for Hepatic Surgery of Colorectal Liver Metastases with 18F-FDG PET: A Randomized Study , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[29]  U. Metser,et al.  The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP Planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[30]  C. Logothetis,et al.  Osteoblasts in prostate cancer metastasis to bone , 2005, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[31]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.