In prostate cancer with biochemical failure after therapy, current imaging techniques have a low detection rate at the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at which targeted salvage therapy is effective. ¹¹C-choline and ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine, though widely used, have poor sensitivity at low PSA levels. ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA (Glu-NH-CO-NH-Lys-(Ahx)-[⁶⁸Ga-N,N′-bis[2-hydroxy-5-(carboxyethyl)benzyl]ethylenediamine-N,N′-diacetic acid]) has shown promising results in retrospective trials. Our aim was to prospectively compare the detection rates of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA versus ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine PET/CT in men who were initially managed with radical prostatectomy, radiation treatment, or both and were being considered for targeted therapy. Methods: A sample of men with a rising PSA level after treatment, eligible for targeted treatment, was prospectively included. Patients on systemic treatment were excluded. ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA, ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine PET/CT, and diagnostic CT were performed sequentially on all patients between January and April 2015, and the images were assessed by masked, experienced interpreters. The findings and their impact on management were documented, together with the results of histologic follow-up when feasible. Results: In total, 38 patients were enrolled. Of these, 34 (89%) had undergone radical prostatectomy and 4 (11%) had undergone radiation treatment. Twelve (32%) had undergone salvage radiation treatment after primary radical prostatectomy. The mean PSA level was 1.74 ± 2.54 ng/mL. The scan results were positive in 26 patients (68%) and negative with both tracers in 12 patients (32%). Of the 26 positive scans, 14 (54%) were positive with ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA alone, 11 (42%) with both ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine and ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA, and only 1 (4%) with ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine alone. When PSA was below 0.5 ng/mL, the detection rate was 50% for ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA versus 12.5% for ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine. When PSA was 0.5–2.0 ng/mL, the detection rate was 69% for ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA versus 31% for ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine, and when PSA was above 2.0, the detection rate was 86% for ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA versus 57% for ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine. On lesion-based analysis, ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA detected more lesions than ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine (59 vs. 29, P < 0.001). The tumor-to-background ratio in positive scans was higher for ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA than for ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine (28.6 for ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA vs. 9.4 for ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine, P < 0.001). There was a 63% (24/38 patients) management impact, with 54% (13/24 patients) being due to ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA imaging alone. Histologic follow-up was available for 9 of 38 patients (24%), and 9 of 9 ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA–positive lesions were consistent with prostate cancer (⁶⁸Ga-PSMA was true-positive). The lesion positive on ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine imaging and negative on ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA imaging was shown at biopsy to be a false-positive ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine finding (⁶⁸Ga-PSMA was true-negative). Conclusion: In patients with biochemical failure and a low PSA level, ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA demonstrated a significantly higher detection rate than ¹⁸F-fluoromethylcholine and a high overall impact on management.

In men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with curative intent, controversy exists regarding the impact of biochemical recurrence (BCR) on oncological outcomes. To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on BCR after treatment with curative intent for nonmetastatic PCa. Objective 1 is to investigate whether oncological outcomes differ between patients with or without BCR. Objective 2 is to study which clinical factors and tumor features in patients with BCR have an independent prognostic impact on oncological outcomes. Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. For objective 1, prospective and retrospective studies comparing survival outcomes of patients with or without BCR following radical prostatectomy (RP) or radical radiotherapy (RT) were included. For objective 2, all studies with at least 100 participants and reporting on prognostic patient and tumor characteristics in patients with BCR were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed according to the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Both a narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis were undertaken. Overall, 77 studies were included for analysis, of which 14 addressed objective 1, recruiting 20 406 patients. Objective 2 was addressed by 71 studies with 29 057, 11 301, and 4272 patients undergoing RP, RT, and a mixed population (mix of patients undergoing RP or RT as primary treatment), respectively. There was a low risk of bias for study participation, confounders, and statistical analysis. For most studies, attrition bias, and prognostic and outcome measurements were not clearly reported. BCR was associated with worse survival rates, mainly in patients with short prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSA-DT) and a high final Gleason score after RP, or a short interval to biochemical failure (IBF) after RT and a high biopsy Gleason score. BCR has an impact on survival, but this effect appears to be limited to a subgroup of patients with specific clinical risk factors. Short PSA-DT and a high final Gleason score after RP, and a short IBF after RT and a high biopsy Gleason score are the main factors that have a negative impact on survival. These factors may form the basis of new BCR risk stratification (European Association of Urology BCR Risk Groups), which needs to be validated formally. This review looks at the risk of death in men who shows rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the blood test performed after curative surgery or radiotherapy. For many men, rising PSA does not mean that they are at a high risk of death from prostate cancer in the longer term. Men with PSA that rises shortly after they were treated with radiotherapy or rapidly rising PSA after surgery and a high tumor grade for both treatment modalities are at the highest risk of death. These factors may form the basis of new risk stratification (European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence Risk Groups), which needs to be validated formally.

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of the neck-thorax-abdomen and pelvis, including 3-phase examination of the liver, constitutes the basic imaging for primary neuroendocrine tumor (NET) diagnosis, staging, surveillance, and therapy monitoring. CT characterization of lymph nodes is difficult because of inadequate size criteria (short axis diameter), and bone metastases are often missed. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including diffusion-weighted imaging is preferred for the examination of the liver, pancreas, brain and bone. MRI may miss small lung metastases. MRI is less well suited than CT for the examination of extended body areas because of the longer examination procedure. Ultrasonography (US) frequently provides the initial diagnosis of liver metastases and contrast-enhanced US is excellent to characterize liver lesions that remain equivocal on CT/MRI. US is the method of choice to guide the biopsy needle for the histopathological NET diagnosis. US cannot visualize thoracic NET lesions for which CT-guided biopsy therefore is used. Endocopic US is the most sensitive method to diagnose pancreatic NETs, and additionally allows for biopsy. Intraoperative US facilitates lesion detection in the pancreas and liver. Somatostatin receptor imaging should be a part of the tumor staging, preoperative imaging and restaging, for which ⁶⁸Ga-DOTA-somatostatin analog PET/CT is recommended, which is vastly superior to somatostatin receptor scintigraphy, and facilitates the diagnosis of most types of NET lesions, for example lymph node metastases, bone metastases, liver metastases, peritoneal lesions, and primary small intestinal NETs. ¹⁸FDG-PET/CT is better suited for G3 and high G2 NETs, which generally have higher glucose metabolism and less somatostatin receptor expression than low-grade NETs, and additionally provides prognostic information.

In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics. To present the report of APCCC 2017. Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions. The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process. Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data. The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process.