Abstract
Abstract
Background
Despite its high specificity, PSMA PET/CT has a moderate to low sensitivity of 40–50% for pelvic lymph node detection, implicating that a negative PSMA PET/CT cannot rule out lymph node metastases. This study investigates a strategy of implementing PSMA PET/CT for initial prostate cancer staging and treatment planning compared to conventional diagnostics. In this PSMA PET/CT strategy, a bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) is only performed in case of a negative PSMA PET/CT; in case of a positive scan treatment planning is solely based on PSMA PET/CT results.
Method
A decision table and lifetime state transition model were created. Quality-adjusted life years and health care costs were modelled over lifetime.
Results
The PSMA PET/CT strategy of treatment planning based on initial staging with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT results in cost-savings of €674 and a small loss in quality of life (QoL), 0.011 QALY per patient. The positive effect of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT was caused by abandoning both an ePLND and unnecessary treatment in iM1 patients, saving costs and resulting in higher QoL. The negative effect was caused by lower QoL and high costs in the false palliative state, due to pN1lim patients (≤ 4 pelvic lymph node metastases) being falsely diagnosed as iN1ext (> 4 pelvic lymph node metastases). These patients received subsequently palliative treatment instead of potentially curative therapy.
Conclusion
Initial staging and treatment planning based on [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT saves cost but results in small QALY loss due to the rate of false positive findings.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Reference32 articles.
1. European Association of Urology. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2020 [Internet]. 2020 [cited 30 April 2020]. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/.
2. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A et al (2006) Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 50:1006–1013
3. Loeb S, Partin AW, Schaeffer EM (2010) Complications of pelvic lymphadenectomy: do the risks outweigh the benefits? Rev Urol 12:20–24
4. Fossati N, Willemse PM, Van den Broeck T et al (2017) The benefits and harms of different extents of lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 72:84–109
5. Hofman MS, Lawrentschuk N, Francis RJ et al (2020) 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. Lancet 395:1208–1216