Table 2.
Literature review of the impact of PSMA PET on primary staging of patients with prostate cancer
| Author and year | Study Design | Location | N | Population | Median PSA ng/mL (range) | Improvement with PSMA PET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Budäus et al. 2016 [48] | R | Hamburg, Germany | 30 | HR PCa prior to RP | 8.8 (1.4–376) | Se 33%, spec 100%, PPV 100%, NPV 69% |
| Calais et al. 2018 [45] | P | Los Angeles, USA | 73 | IR/HR PCa prior to RT planning | 13.9 (0.22–909) | 9.5% uptaged to M1 |
| Demirkol et al. 2015 [49] | R | Istanbul, Turkey | 8 | HR PCa for staging | 15 (0.3–20) | N/A |
| Fendler et al. 2016 [50] | R | Munich, Germany | 21 | PCa for staging | N/A | Se 67%, spec 92%, PPV 97%, NPV 42% Acc 72% |
| Frenzel et al. 2018 [51] | R | Hamburg, Germany | 20 | PCa prior to RT planning | 7.1 (0.48–137) | N/A |
| Herlemann et al. 2016 [52] | R | Munich, Germany | 20 | HR PCa prior to RP | a56 (3.3–363) | Se 84%, spec 82%, PPV 84%, NPV 82% |
| Hijazi et al. 2015 [53] | R | Göttingen, Germany | 12 | PCa for staging | 48 (6–90) | Se 94%, spec 99%, PPV 89%, NPV 99.5% |
| Hirmas et al. 2018 [54] | R | Amman, Jordan | 21 | HR PCa for staging | 38 (0.6- > 100) | Se 85% Acc 85.7%, PPV 100% |
| Hruby et al. 2018 [55] | R | NSW, Australia | 109 | IR/HR PCa prior to EBRT | 9.9 (1.23–240) | 21% upstaged, 3% downstaged |
| Kabasakal et al. 2015 [56] | R | Istanbul, Turkey | 15 | PCa for staging | 37.78 (5.12–70.47) | N/A |
| Maurer et al. 2015 [57] | R | Munich, Germany | 130 | HR PCa prior to RP | 11.6 (0.57–244) | Se 68%, spec 99%, PPV 95%, NPV 94% |
| Rahbar et al. 2015 [58] | P | Münster, Germany | 6 | HR PCa prior to RP | 52.7 (5.7–111.1) | Se 92%, spec 92%, PPV 96%, NPV 85% |
| Rhee et al. 2016 [59] | P | Queensland, Australia | 20 | PCa prior to RP | 6.1 (3.5–45) | Se 49%, spec 95%, PPV 85% NPV 88% |
| Roach et al. 2017 [44] | P | Sydney, Australia | 108 | IR/HR PCa for staging | 8.6 (0.18–120) | 20% upstaged, 1% downstaged |
| Sachpekidis et al. 2016 [60] | P | Heidelberg, Germany | 24 | HR PCa | 24.1 (3.2–200) | N/A |
| Schwenck et al. 2016 [61] | P | Tübingen, Germany | 20 | HR PCa for staging, PSMA vs choline | 26 (N/A) | N/A |
| Sterzing et al. 2016 [62] | R | Heidelberg, Germany | 15 | HR PCa for staging | 7 (0.28–45) | 13.7% changed their TNM staging |
| Uprimny et al. 2017 [63] | R | Innsbruck, Austria | 90 | PCa, other analysis | 9.7 (2.2–188.4) | N/A |
| Van Leeuwen et al. 2017 [64] | P | Sydney, Australia | 30 | IR/HR PCa prior to RP | 8.1 (5.2–10.1) | Se 58%, spec 100%, PPV 94%, NPV 98% |
| Zamboglou et al. 2015 [65] | R | Freiburg, Germany | 22 | PCa prior to RT planning | 20.4 (1.22–66.9) | GTV-PET larger than GTV-MRI |
aValue for mean reported, not median. GTV gross tumor volume, HR High-risk, IR intermediate-risk, LND lymph node dissection, N/A not applicable, NPV negative predictive value, P prospective study, PPV positive predictive value, R retrospective study, RP radical prostatectomy, RT radiotherapy, Se Sensitivity, spec specificity