Development of Discordant Hypermetabolic Prostate Cancer Lesions in the Course of [\(^{177}\)Lu]PSMA Radioligand Therapy and Their Possible Influence on Patient Outcome

Simple Summary Discordant FDG-positive but PSMA-negative (FDG+/PSMA−) metastases constitute a negative prognostic marker of overall survival in patients undergoing PSMA radioligand therapy (RLT). The aim of this analysis was to investigate the prognostic implications of new FDG+/PSMA− lesions, which occur during or after PSMA RLT. In a retrospective bicentric analysis of 32 patients undergoing PSMA RLT and follow-up dual tracer staging with PSMA and FDG PET/CT, FDG+/PSMA− lesions occurred in a limited number of patients. However, the presence of FDG+/PSMA− lesions appears not to have a significant impact on the OS, but further studies are needed to establish the clinical relevance of such lesions. Abstract Introduction: Positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PET/CT) targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is crucial for the assessment of adequate PSMA expression in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) prior to PSMA radioligand therapy (PSMA RLT). Moreover, initial dual tracer staging using combined PSMA and [\(^{18}\)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT provides relevant information, since discordant FDG-positive but PSMA-negative (FDG+/PSMA−) lesions constitute a negative prognostic marker of overall survival (OS) after PSMA RLT. However, little is known about the prognostic implications of dual tracer imaging for restaging at follow-up. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the prognostic implications of new FDG+/PSMA− lesions during or after PSMA RLT. Methods: This bicentric analysis included 32 patients with mCRPC who underwent both FDG and PSMA PET/CT imaging after two or four cycles of PSMA RLT. Patients with FDG+/PSMA− lesions prior to PSMA RLT were not considered. The presence of FDG+/PSMA− lesions was assessed with follow-up dual tracer imaging of patients after two or four cycles of PSMA RLT. Patients with at least one new FDG+/PSMA− lesion were compared to patients without any FDG+/PSMA− lesions at the respective time points. A log-rank analysis was used to assess the difference in OS between subgroups. Results: After two cycles of PSMA RLT, four of 32 patients (13%) had FDG+/PSMA− metastases. No significant difference in OS was observed (p = 0.807), as compared to patients without FDG+/PSMA− lesions. Follow-up dual tracer imaging after the 4th cycle of PSMA RLT was available in 18 patients. Of these, four patients presented with FDG+/PSMA− findings (n = 2 already after two cycles). After the fourth cycle of PSMA RLT, no significant difference in OS was observed between patients with and without FDG+/PSMA− lesions (p = 0.442). Conclusion: This study shows that FDG+/PSMA− lesions develop in a limited number of patients undergoing PSMA RLT. Further studies are needed to establish the clinical relevance of such lesions