Academic Bibliography

 Search 200 years of publications by Ghent University researchers.
Advanced search
1 file | 521.11 KB
Add to list
  1. Search results
  2. Clinical and genomic differences betw...

Clinical and genomic differences between advanced molecular imaging-detected and conventional imaging-detected metachronous oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer

Philip Sutera, Yang Song, Kim Van der Eecken, Amol C Shetty, Keara English, Theresa Hodges, Jinhee Chang, Valerie Fonteyne (UGent) , Zaker Rana, Lei Ren, et al.
(2023) EUROPEAN UROLOGY. 84(6). p.531-535
Author
Organization
Abstract
In metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), disease volume plays an integral role in guiding treatment recommendations, including selection of docetaxel therapy, metastasis-directed therapy, and radiation to the prostate. Although there are multiple definitions of disease volume, they have commonly been studied in the context of metastases detected via conventional imaging (CIM). One such numeric definition of disease volume, termed oligometastasis, is heavily dependent on the sensitivity of the imaging modality. We performed an international multi-institutional retrospective review of men with metachronous oligometastatic CSPC (omCSPC), detected via either advanced molecular imaging alone (AMIM) or CIM. Patients were compared with respect to clinical and genomic features using the Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson's χ<sup>2</sup> test, and Kaplan-Meier overall survival (OS) analyses with a log-rank test. A total of 295 patients were included for analysis. Patients with CIM-omCSPC had significantly higher Gleason grade group (p = 0.032), higher prostate-specific antigen at omCSPC diagnosis (8.0 vs 1.7 ng/ml; p < 0.001), more frequent pathogenic TP53 mutations (28% vs 17%; p = 0.030), and worse 10-yr OS (85% vs 100%; p < 0.001). This is the first report of clinical and biological differences between AMIM-detected and CIM-detected omCSPC. Our findings are particularly important for ongoing and planned clinical trials in omCSPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Metastatic prostate cancer with just a few metastases only detected via newer scanning methods (called molecular imaging) is associated with fewer high-risk DNA mutations and better survival in comparison to metastatic cancer detected via conventional scan methods.
Keywords
Genomics, Molecular imaging, Oligometastatic prostate cancer

Downloads

  • Download
    MW.pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 521.11 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Sutera, Philip, et al. “Clinical and Genomic Differences between Advanced Molecular Imaging-Detected and Conventional Imaging-Detected Metachronous Oligometastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.” EUROPEAN UROLOGY, vol. 84, no. 6, 2023, pp. 531–35, doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.025.
APA
Sutera, P., Song, Y., Van der Eecken, K., Shetty, A. C., English, K., Hodges, T., … Tran, P. T. (2023). Clinical and genomic differences between advanced molecular imaging-detected and conventional imaging-detected metachronous oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 84(6), 531–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.025
Chicago author-date
Sutera, Philip, Yang Song, Kim Van der Eecken, Amol C Shetty, Keara English, Theresa Hodges, Jinhee Chang, et al. 2023. “Clinical and Genomic Differences between Advanced Molecular Imaging-Detected and Conventional Imaging-Detected Metachronous Oligometastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.” EUROPEAN UROLOGY 84 (6): 531–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.025.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Sutera, Philip, Yang Song, Kim Van der Eecken, Amol C Shetty, Keara English, Theresa Hodges, Jinhee Chang, Valerie Fonteyne, Zaker Rana, Lei Ren, Adrianna A Mendes, Nicolaas Lumen, Louke Delrue, Sofie Verbeke, Kathia De Man, Daniel Y Song, Kenneth Pienta, Felix Y Feng, Steven Joniau, Tamara Lotan, Barton Lane, Ana Kiess, Steven Rowe, Martin Pomper, Theodore DeWeese, Matthew Deek, Christopher Sweeney, Piet Ost, and Phuoc T Tran. 2023. “Clinical and Genomic Differences between Advanced Molecular Imaging-Detected and Conventional Imaging-Detected Metachronous Oligometastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.” EUROPEAN UROLOGY 84 (6): 531–535. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.025.
Vancouver
1.
Sutera P, Song Y, Van der Eecken K, Shetty AC, English K, Hodges T, et al. Clinical and genomic differences between advanced molecular imaging-detected and conventional imaging-detected metachronous oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. EUROPEAN UROLOGY. 2023;84(6):531–5.
IEEE
[1]
P. Sutera et al., “Clinical and genomic differences between advanced molecular imaging-detected and conventional imaging-detected metachronous oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer,” EUROPEAN UROLOGY, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 531–535, 2023.
@article{01HDGWJA2YJBA6QVBNWSMV4HVA,
  abstract     = {{In metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), disease volume plays an integral role in guiding treatment recommendations, including selection of docetaxel therapy, metastasis-directed therapy, and radiation to the prostate. Although there are multiple definitions of disease volume, they have commonly been studied in the context of metastases detected via conventional imaging (CIM). One such numeric definition of disease volume, termed oligometastasis, is heavily dependent on the sensitivity of the imaging modality. We performed an international multi-institutional retrospective review of men with metachronous oligometastatic CSPC (omCSPC), detected via either advanced molecular imaging alone (AMIM) or CIM. Patients were compared with respect to clinical and genomic features using the Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson's χ<sup>2</sup> test, and Kaplan-Meier overall survival (OS) analyses with a log-rank test. A total of 295 patients were included for analysis. Patients with CIM-omCSPC had significantly higher Gleason grade group (p = 0.032), higher prostate-specific antigen at omCSPC diagnosis (8.0 vs 1.7 ng/ml; p < 0.001), more frequent pathogenic TP53 mutations (28% vs 17%; p = 0.030), and worse 10-yr OS (85% vs 100%; p < 0.001). This is the first report of clinical and biological differences between AMIM-detected and CIM-detected omCSPC. Our findings are particularly important for ongoing and planned clinical trials in omCSPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Metastatic prostate cancer with just a few metastases only detected via newer scanning methods (called molecular imaging) is associated with fewer high-risk DNA mutations and better survival in comparison to metastatic cancer detected via conventional scan methods.}},
  author       = {{Sutera, Philip and Song, Yang and Van der Eecken, Kim and Shetty, Amol C and English, Keara and Hodges, Theresa and Chang, Jinhee and Fonteyne, Valerie and Rana, Zaker and Ren, Lei and Mendes, Adrianna A and Lumen, Nicolaas and Delrue, Louke and Verbeke, Sofie and De Man, Kathia and Song, Daniel Y and Pienta, Kenneth and Feng, Felix Y and Joniau, Steven and Lotan, Tamara and Lane, Barton and Kiess, Ana and Rowe, Steven and Pomper, Martin and DeWeese, Theodore and Deek, Matthew and Sweeney, Christopher and Ost, Piet and Tran, Phuoc T}},
  issn         = {{0302-2838}},
  journal      = {{EUROPEAN UROLOGY}},
  keywords     = {{Genomics,Molecular imaging,Oligometastatic prostate cancer}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{6}},
  pages        = {{531--535}},
  title        = {{Clinical and genomic differences between advanced molecular imaging-detected and conventional imaging-detected metachronous oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.025}},
  volume       = {{84}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}
Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: