Background
Conventional imaging using CT and bone scan has insufficient sensitivity when staging men with high-risk localised prostate cancer. We aimed to investigate whether novel imaging using prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET-CT might improve accuracy and affect management.
Methods
In this multicentre, two-arm, randomised study, we recruited men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer and high-risk features at ten hospitals in Australia. Patients were randomly assigned to conventional imaging with CT and bone scanning or gallium-68 PSMA-11 PET-CT. First-line imaging was done within 21 days following randomisation. Patients crossed over unless three or more distant metastases were identified. The primary outcome was accuracy of first-line imaging for identifying either pelvic nodal or distant-metastatic disease defined by the receiver-operating curve using a predefined reference-standard including histopathology, imaging, and biochemistry at 6-month follow-up. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ANZCTR12617000005358.
Findings
From March 22, 2017 to Nov 02, 2018, 339 men were assessed for eligibility and 302 men were randomly assigned. 152 (50%) men were randomly assigned to conventional imaging and 150 (50%) to PSMA PET-CT. Of 295 (98%) men with follow-up, 87 (30%) had pelvic nodal or distant metastatic disease. PSMA PET-CT had a 27% (95% CI 23–31) greater accuracy than that of conventional imaging (92% [88–95] vs 65% [60–69]; p<0·0001). We found a lower sensitivity (38% [24–52] vs 85% [74–96]) and specificity (91% [85–97] vs 98% [95–100]) for conventional imaging compared with PSMA PET-CT. Subgroup analyses also showed the superiority of PSMA PET-CT (area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve 91% vs 59% [32% absolute difference; 28–35] for patients with pelvic nodal metastases, and 95% vs 74% [22% absolute difference; 18–26] for patients with distant metastases). First-line conventional imaging conferred management change less frequently (23 [15%] men [10–22] vs 41 [28%] men [21–36]; p=0·008) and had more equivocal findings (23% [17–31] vs 7% [4–13]) than PSMA PET-CT did. Radiation exposure was 10·9 mSv (95% CI 9·8–12·0) higher for conventional imaging than for PSMA PET-CT (19·2 mSv vs 8·4 mSv; p<0·001). We found high reporter agreement for PSMA PET-CT (κ=0·87 for nodal and κ=0·88 for distant metastases). In patients who underwent second-line image, management change occurred in seven (5%) of 136 patients following conventional imaging, and in 39 (27%) of 146 following PSMA PET-CT.
Interpretation
PSMA PET-CT is a suitable replacement for conventional imaging, providing superior accuracy, to the combined findings of CT and bone scanning.
Funding
Movember and Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia.