Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Commentary
2023
:9;
2
doi:
10.25259/ASJO_4_2023

Bone metastases of prostate cancer: PSMA PET versus bone scan

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Kirklareli University, Kırklareli, Turkey
Corresponding author: Prof. Dr. Ismet Sarikaya, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Kirklareli University, Kırklareli, Turkey. isarikaya99@yahoo.com.
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms

How to cite this article: Sarikaya I. Bone metastases of prostate cancer: PSMA PET versus bone scan. Asian J Oncol, 2023;9:2.

Due to high blood flow in the red bone marrow, bone is a common site of metastasis for various cancers including prostate cancer. Multiple factors and expression of certain genes contribute to the homing of tumor cells to the bone marrow/bone.[1] Tumor cells escape from the circulation into the bone marrow, interact with resident bone marrow cells for survival, and resident bone cells are activated (crosstalk between tumor cells and resident bone and bone marrow cells), which leads to tumor growth in bone.[2] Bone metastases of prostate cancer are osteoblastic (osteosclerotic) in nature. In osteoblastic metastases, there is formation of new bone that is immature and of poor quality. Tumor cells secrete various factors that induce osteoblastic proliferation and differentiation, such as growth factors (TGF-b, VEGF, and FGF).[3] In prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen and other substances also contribute to modifying the bone microenvironment.

Radionuclide bone imaging (bone scan) is a common procedure in detecting osteoblastic metastases.[4] Bone scan detects bone metastases indirectly by binding to new bone formation among tumor foci in metastatic niche. Compared to traditional diphosphonate bone scan (scintigraphy), 18F-sodium fluoride (NaF) PET bone scan has higher sensitivity in detecting bone metastases.[5] PET can detect small foci, which are below the resolution of gamma cameras. One of the limitations of bone scan is that certain benign lesions such as osteophytes, facet arthritis, and degenerative disk disease can also show increased radiotracer uptake, which may mimic metastases.[6] However, CT component of hybrid PET and gamma cameras (SPECT/CT and PET/CT) is very helpful in differentiating benign from malignant uptake in most of the cases.

A PSA cutoff value of 10–20 is recommended for ordering diphosphonate bone scan in newly diagnosed and untreated asymptomatic prostate cancer patients.[7,8] In our original study, we found a PSA cutoff value of 20 ng/mL for ordering NaF PET bone scan in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients.[9] Recent studies have demonstrated that prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET imaging is superior to bone scan in detecting bone metastases of prostate cancer.[10,11] PSMA is a type II transmembrane protein with enzymatic activity (glutamate carboxypeptidase II) that is overexpressed in prostate cancer.[12] PSMA PET scan is used for initial staging of high-risk prostate cancer and detecting its recurrences.

In assessing response to treatment of bone metastases, bone scan is recommended by guidelines of Prostate Cancer Working Group 3.[13] 18F-NaF PET/CT has been reported to be an accurate imaging modality in the assessment of treatment response in patients with bone-only metastases from prostate cancer.[14] However, bone scan has certain limitations for assesing response to treatments because bone healing or flare response can cause increased uptake, which may cause difficulty at interpreting images.[15] Uptake due to flare phenomenon lasts approximately 6–12 months after chemotherapy. To avoid misinterpretation of the flare reaction, it is recommended to wait 6 months before evaluating the response to treatments or repeating the bone scan.[16] Due to long waiting time, radionuclide bone imaging is not useful in early response assessment to treatments. MRI was reported to be not affected by flare response and has a potential for early response assessment to treatments.[17] Role of PSMA PET scan in assesing response to treatments of bone metastases remains less clear. Androgen-axis targeted agents upregulate PSMA as a result of the interruption of androgen signaling, which may change the tracer uptake and the apparent extent of the disease.[18]

Declaration of patient consent

Patient’s consent not required as there are no patients in this study.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. . Biology of Cancer and PET ımaging: pictorial review. J Nucl Med Technol 2022
    [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , . Bone metastasis: mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2011;7:208-18.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  3. , . Mechanisms of osteolytic and osteoblastic skeletal lesions. Bonekey Rep. 2015;4:753.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  4. , , . Semiquantitative assessment of osteoblastic, osteolytic, and mixed lytic-sclerotic bone lesions on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and bone scintigraphy. World J Nucl Med. 2019;18:132-6.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  5. . Imaging of malignant bone involvement by morphologic, scintigraphic, and hybrid modalities. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1356-67.
    [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , . Normal bone and soft tissue distribution of fluorine-18-sodium fluoride and artifacts on 18F-NaF PET/CT bone scan: a pictorial review. Nucl Med Commun. 2017;38:810-19.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , . When is bone scintigraphy necessary in the assessment of newly diagnosed, untreated prostate cancer? Br J Urol. 1997;79:770-6.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , . Predicting radionuclide bone scan findings in patients with newly diagnosed, untreated prostate cancer: Prostate specific antigen is superior to all other clinical parameters. J Urol. 1991;145:313-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , , et al. Prostate-specific antigen cutoff value for ordering sodium fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography bone scan in patients with prostate cancer. World J Nucl Med. 2018;17:281-5.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , . Bone scintigraphy versus PSMA-targeted PET/CT or PET/MRI in prostate cancer: lessons learned from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14:4470.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  11. , . Head-to-head comparison of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: A meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022;219:386-95.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , . Can gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand be a potential radiotracer for renal cortical positron emission tomography imaging? World J Nucl Med. 2018;17:126-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , , , , et al. Trial design and objectives for castration-resistant prostate cancer: updated recommendations from the prostate cancer clinical trials working group 3. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1402-18.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  14. , , . Treatment response assessment of skeletal metastases in prostate cancer with 18F-NaF PET/CT. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;53:247-52.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , . Fluorodeoxyglucose, sodium fluoride, and prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography studies for treatment response assessment in prostate cancer. World J Nucl Med. 2018;17:207-10.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  16. , , , , , , et al. EORTC Imaging Group. Monitoring the response of bone metastases to treatment with Magnetic Resonance Imaging and nuclear medicine techniques: a review and position statement by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer imaging group. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:2519-31.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. , . Bony metastases: assessing response to therapy with whole-body diffusion MRI. Cancer Imaging. 2011;11:S129-54.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
  18. , , , , , , et al. PSMA PET/CT: joint EANM procedure guideline/SNMMI procedure standard for prostate cancer imaging 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50:1466-86.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
2,971

PDF downloads
492
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections