European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 5: Consensus on Molecular Imaging and Theranostics in Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In prostate cancer (PCa), questions remain on indications for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and PSMA radioligand therapy, integration of advanced imaging in nomogram-based decision-making, dosimetry, and development of new theranostic applications. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to critically review developments in molecular hybrid imaging and systemic radioligand therapy, to reach a multidisciplinary consensus on the current state of the art in PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The results of a systematic literature search informed a two-round Delphi process with a panel of 28 PCa experts in medical or radiation oncology, urology, radiology, medical physics, and nuclear medicine. The results were discussed and ratified in a consensus meeting. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Forty-eight statements were scored on a Likert agreement scale and six as ranking options. Agreement statements were analysed using the RAND appropriateness method. Ranking statements were analysed using weighted summed scores. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After two Delphi rounds, there was consensus on 42/48 (87.5%) of the statements. The expert panel recommends PSMA PET to be used for staging the majority of patients with unfavourable intermediate and high risk, and for restaging of suspected recurrent PCa. There was consensus that oligometastatic disease should be defined as up to five metastases, even using advanced imaging modalities. The group agreed that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA should not be administered only after progression to cabazitaxel and that [223Ra]RaCl2 remains a valid therapeutic option in bone-only metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Uncertainty remains on various topics, including the need for concordant findings on both [18F]FDG and PSMA PET prior to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high proportion of agreement among a panel of experts on the use of molecular imaging and theranostics in PCa. Although consensus statements cannot replace high-certainty evidence, these can aid in the interpretation and dissemination of best practice from centres of excellence to the wider clinical community. PATIENT SUMMARY: There are situations when dealing with prostate cancer (PCa) where both the doctors who diagnose and track the disease development and response to treatment, and those who give treatments are unsure about what the best course of action is. Examples include what methods they should use to obtain images of the cancer and what to do when the cancer has returned or spread. We reviewed published research studies and provided a summary to a panel of experts in imaging and treating PCa. We also used the research summary to develop a questionnaire whereby we asked the experts to state whether or not they agreed with a list of statements. We used these results to provide guidance to other health care professionals on how best to image men with PCa and what treatments to give, when, and in what order, based on the information the images provide.

Designing clinical trials based on modern imaging and metastasis-directed treatments in patients with oligometastatic breast cancer: a consensus recommendation from the EORTC Imaging and Breast Cancer Groups.

Breast cancer remains the most common cause of cancer death among women. Despite its considerable histological and molecular heterogeneity, those characteristics are not distinguished in most definitions of oligometastatic disease and clinical trials of oligometastatic breast cancer. After an exhaustive review of the literature covering all aspects of oligometastatic breast cancer, 35 experts from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Imaging and Breast Cancer Groups elaborated a Delphi questionnaire aimed at offering consensus recommendations, including oligometastatic breast cancer definition, optimal diagnostic pathways, and clinical trials required to evaluate the effect of diagnostic imaging strategies and metastasis-directed therapies. The main recommendations are the introduction of modern imaging methods in metastatic screening for an earlier diagnosis of oligometastatic breast cancer and the development of prospective trials also considering the histological and molecular complexity of breast cancer. Strategies for the randomisation of imaging methods and therapeutic approaches in different subsets of patients are also addressed.

[18F]DCFPyL PET/CT versus [18F]fluoromethylcholine PET/CT in Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer (PYTHON): a prospective, open label, cross-over, comparative study.

PURPOSE: Primary objective was to compare the per-patient detection rates (DR) of [18F]DCFPyL versus [18F]fluoromethylcholine positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), in patients with first prostate cancer (PCa) biochemical recurrence (BCR). Secondary endpoints included safety and impact on patient management (PM). METHODS: This was a prospective, open label, cross-over, comparative study with randomized treatment administration of [18F]DCFPyL (investigational medicinal product) or [18F]fluoromethylcholine (comparator). Men with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after initial curative therapy were enrolled. [18F]DCFPyL and [18F]fluoromethylcholine PET/CTs were performed within a maximum time interval of 12 days. DR was defined as the percentage of positive PET/CT scans identified by 3 central imaging readers. PM was assessed by comparing the proposed pre-PET/CT treatment with the local treatment", defined after considering both PET/CTs. RESULTS: A total of 205 patients with first BCR after radical prostatectomy (73%; median PSA = 0.46 ng/ml [CI 0.16;27.0]) or radiation therapy (27%; median PSA = 4.23 ng/ml [CI 1.4;98.6]) underwent [18F]DCFPyL- and/or [18F]fluoromethylcholine -PET/CTs, between July and December 2020, at 22 European sites. 201 patients completed the study. The per-patient DR was significantly higher for [18F]DCFPyL- compared to [18F]fluoromethylcholine -PET/CTs (58% (117/201 patients) vs. 40% (81/201 patients), p < 0.0001). DR increased with higher PSA values for both tracers (PSA ≤ 0.5 ng/ml: 26/74 (35%) vs. 22/74 (30%); PSA 0.5 to ≤ 1.0 ng/ml: 17/31 (55%) vs. 10/31 (32%); PSA 1.01 to < 2.0 ng/ml: 13/19 (68%) vs. 6/19 (32%);PSA > 2.0: 50/57 (88%) vs. 39/57 (68%) for [18F]DCFPyL- and [18F]fluoromethylcholine -PET/CT, respectively). [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT had an impact on PM in 44% (90/204) of patients versus 29% (58/202) for [18F]fluoromethylcholine. Overall, no drug-related nor serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The primary endpoint of this study was achieved, confirming a significantly higher detection rate for [18F]DCFPyL compared to [18F]fluoromethylcholine, in men with first BCR of PCa, across a wide PSA range. [18F]DCFPyL was safe and well tolerated.

Twenty Years On: RECIST as a Biomarker of Response in Solid Tumours an EORTC Imaging Group - ESOI Joint Paper.

Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 are currently the reference standard for evaluating efficacy of therapies in patients with solid tumours who are included in clinical trials, and they are widely used and accepted by regulatory agencies. This expert statement discusses the principles underlying RECIST, as well as their reproducibility and limitations. While the RECIST framework may not be perfect, the scientific bases for the anticancer drugs that have been approved using a RECIST-based surrogate endpoint remain valid. Importantly, changes in measurement have to meet thresholds defined by RECIST for response classification within thus partly circumventing the problems of measurement variability. The RECIST framework also applies to clinical patients in individual settings even though the relationship between tumour size changes and outcome from cohort studies is not necessarily translatable to individual cases. As reproducibility of RECIST measurements is impacted by reader experience, choice of target lesions and detection/interpretation of new lesions, it can result in patients changing response categories when measurements are near threshold values or if new lesions are missed or incorrectly interpreted. There are several situations where RECIST will fail to evaluate treatment-induced changes correctly; knowledge and understanding of these is crucial for correct interpretation. Also, some patterns of response/progression cannot be correctly documented by RECIST, particularly in relation to organ-site (e.g. bone without associated soft-tissue lesion) and treatment type (e.g. focal therapies). These require specialist reader experience and communication with oncologists to determine the actual impact of the therapy and best evaluation strategy. In such situations, alternative imaging markers for tumour response may be used but the sources of variability of individual imaging techniques need to be known and accounted for. Communication between imaging experts and oncologists regarding the level of confidence in a biomarker is essential for the correct interpretation of a biomarker and its application to clinical decision-making. Though measurement automation is desirable and potentially reduces the variability of results, associated technical difficulties must be overcome, and human adjudications may be required.