Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

For on-treatment monitoring, a fixed absolute tumor volume increase (e.g., 50mL) on PSMA-PET is a superior marker of progression than a percentage-based change. Percentage metrics unfairly disadvantage patients with high-volume baseline disease, where a small relative change can represent massive, clinically significant growth.

Related Insights

Standard RECIST criteria can misclassify a significant response as "stable disease." A desmoid tumor can shrink dramatically in volume (from a "softball" to a "pencil") but maintain its length, showing no change by RECIST. This suggests clinicians are likely underestimating the true benefit of therapies.

The advent of highly sensitive PSMA PET imaging identifies metastases in many patients previously considered to have only biochemical relapse (BCR). However, experts argue against a knee-jerk reaction to treat. Many of these patients, particularly those with slow PSA doubling times, can be safely observed, challenging the assumption that visible disease always requires immediate intervention.

While many clinical trials haven't officially counted PSMA-PET only disease as metastatic, clinicians have latitude. If a PSMA-PET scan reveals aggressive, multifocal disease, especially with a rapidly rising PSA, it should be treated as incurable metastatic cancer, justifying the initiation of systemic therapy.

While PSMA PET scans are more sensitive, they create a clinical dilemma because pivotal trials defining treatment efficacy were based on conventional imaging (CT/bone scans). This forces oncologists to either re-image patients with older technology to match trial criteria or make treatment decisions based on PET data that lacks a clear evidence-based framework for response assessment.

The patient population in pivotal trials like EMBARK, defined as non-metastatic by conventional imaging, is being re-evaluated. A UCLA study showed that over 80% of a similar patient group would have been positive on a PSMA PET scan, suggesting the "M0" classification is largely an artifact of older imaging technology and that these patients likely have micrometastatic disease.

PSMA-PET imaging at baseline can identify who benefits from adding lutetium-PSMA. In the ENZA-P trial, patients with high-volume disease saw a significant survival benefit from the combination. Conversely, those with low-volume disease derived no benefit, suggesting imaging can be used for patient selection.

NCCN now recommends PSMA PET as a potential replacement for traditional CT, MRI, and bone scans for initial staging of higher-risk prostate cancer and detecting recurrence. This shift is based on PSMA PET's superior sensitivity and specificity for finding micrometastatic disease, positioning it as a more effective frontline tool.

The introduction of highly sensitive PSMA PET scans means established endpoints like Metastasis-Free Survival (MFS) may no longer be valid. A metastasis detected by PET likely has a different, better prognosis than one found with older imaging, requiring new validation for this key endpoint.

When assessing PSMA expression on PET scans, using the average uptake across all tumors (SUVmean) provides a more stable and holistic measure of disease burden. The alternative, SUVmax, which measures the single brightest point, is analogous to a single, potentially unrepresentative biopsy of a heterogeneous cancer.

The clinical definition of "non-metastatic" prostate cancer is based on conventional imaging like CT and bone scans. However, with advanced PET scanning, it's clear these cases are biologically micro-metastatic. This discrepancy is crucial as clinical trial data for this stage is based on the older, less sensitive imaging standards.

Absolute Volume Increase on PET Scans Is a Better Progression Marker Than Percentage-Based Metrics | RiffOn