Standard guidelines for treating metastatic prostate cancer are based on conventional imaging (CT/bone scan). The panel argues that PSMA PET-positive biochemical recurrence represents a different, earlier disease state. This necessitates new treatment paradigms, like definitive therapy durations, not covered by current guidelines.

The term "oligometastatic" is problematic because it's "imaging agnostic," failing to distinguish between lesions found on highly sensitive PSMA PET versus conventional scans, which carry different prognoses. The working group advocates for the more precise term "PSMA-positive BCR" to define this specific disease state.

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.

While the landmark EMBARK study enrolled patients with no metastatic disease on conventional imaging (CT/bone scan), a similar population scanned with advanced PSMA PET imaging showed 84% had M1 disease. This suggests that treatments for this population are effective against micrometastases not visible on older scans, blurring the lines between localized and metastatic states.

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.

The NCI Working Group argues against equating PSMA PET-positive biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer with traditional metastatic disease. They propose the term "PSMA positive BCR" to emphasize that traditional prognostic factors still apply and the natural history is distinct and often more indolent.

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.