↓ Skip to main content

Preliminary results on response assessment using 68Ga-HBED-CC-PSMA PET/CT in patients with metastatic prostate cancer undergoing docetaxel chemotherapy

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Preliminary results on response assessment using 68Ga-HBED-CC-PSMA PET/CT in patients with metastatic prostate cancer undergoing docetaxel chemotherapy
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00259-017-3887-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Katharina Seitz, Isabel Rauscher, Bernhard Haller, Markus Krönke, Sophia Luther, Matthias M. Heck, Thomas Horn, Jürgen E. Gschwend, Markus Schwaiger, Matthias Eiber, Tobias Maurer

Abstract

To investigate the value of 68Ga-HBED-CC PSMA (68Ga-PSMA) PET/CT for response assessment in metastatic castration-sensitive and castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCSPC and mCRPC) during docetaxel chemotherapy. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT was performed in seven mCSPC patients before and after six cycles of upfront docetaxel chemotherapy and in 16 mCRPC patients before and after three cycles of palliative docetaxel chemotherapy. Radiographic treatment response was evaluated separately on the 68Ga-PSMA PET and CT datasets. Changes in 68Ga-PSMA uptake (SUVmean) were assessed on a per-patient and a per-lesion basis using the PERCIST scoring system with slight modification. Treatment response was defined as absence of any PSMA uptake in all target lesions on posttreatment PET (complete response, CR) or a decrease in summed SUVmean of ≥30% (partial response, PR). The appearance of a new PET-positive lesion or an increase in summed SUVmean of ≥30% (progressive disease, PD) indicated nonresponse. A moderate change in summed SUVmean (between -30% and +30%) without a change in the number of target lesions was defined as stable disease (SD). For treatment response assessment on CT, RECIST1.1 criteria were used. Radiographic responses on 68Ga-PSMA PET [RR(PET)] and on CT [RR(CT)] were compared and correlated with biochemical response (BR). A decrease in serum PSA level of ≥50% was defined as biochemical PR. Biochemical PR was found in six of seven patients with mCSPC (86%, 95% confidence interval 42% to 99.6%). The concordance rate was higher between BR and RR(PET) than between BR and RR(CT) (6/7 vs. 3/6 patients. 68Ga-PSMA PET and CT were concordant in only three patients (50%, 12% to 88%). In mCRPC patients, biochemical PR was found in six of 16 patients (38%, 15% to 65%). Outcome prediction was concordant between BR and RR(PET) in nine of 16 patients (56%), and between BR and RR(CT) in only four of 12 patients (33%) with target lesions on CT. 68Ga-PSMA PET and CT results corresponded in seven of 12 patients (58%, 28% to 85%). Our preliminary results suggest that 68Ga-PSMA PET might be a promising method for treatment response assessment in mCSPC and mCRPC. The data indicate that for different metastatic sites, the performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET in response assessment might be superior to that of the conventional CT approach and could help differentiate between progressive disease and treatment response. Because of the limited number of patients, the differences revealed in our study were not statistically significant. Thus larger and prospective studies are clearly needed and warranted to confirm the value of 68Ga-PSMA PET as an imaging biomarker for response assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 21 24%
Unknown 22 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 48%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 30 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2018.
All research outputs
#3,895,372
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#436
of 3,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,040
of 442,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#4
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.