Prostatepedia

Conversations With Prostate Cancer Experts


Leave a comment

Imaging Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Dr. Eric Rohren is the chair of the department of radiology at Baylor College of Medicine.

Prostatepedia spoke with him about imaging metastatic prostate cancer.

Subscribe to read Dr. Rohren’s comments on radium therapy + imaging. Members can read the interview in their March 2018 issue of Prostatepedia.

In terms of imaging, what kinds of scans can determine if a man has metastases (mets) anywhere in his body?

Dr. Eric Rohren: X-ray has been around for a long time and still has a role to play. It’s easy to obtain, it’s cheap, and it has low radiation exposure. We still rely on a good old-fashioned chest or bone X-ray, depending on the patient’s symptoms.

These days, most patients with any type of malignancy, and specifically prostate cancer, are managed in a couple of ways.

One way is a CAT scan. CAT scan is a 3-D imaging technique that uses X-rays that can take images of the body, chest, abdomen, and pelvis. Most patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer or treated prostate carcinoma have undergone a CAT scan at some point in the course of their disease. CAT scans can show us the prostate gland, lymph nodes, liver, and many of the different organs where cancer may be hidden.

To supplement that, patients with prostate cancer often get a bone scan, which is a nuclear medicine technique. In a bone scan, we inject radioactive material that goes to the skeleton, and most strongly so in areas where there’s increased skeletal turnover, where something in the bone is inciting a reaction. It may go to benign things like healing fractures, arthritis, and various areas of injury. But the radioactive material also goes to areas of metastatic disease in the skeleton, and it localizes most particularly in those areas, lighting up on these bone scans.

Rather than just a particular region of the body, a bone scan shows us from the top of the head all the way down to the feet, which is nice. We get a look at the entire skeleton, and we can look for the little spots that are lighting up that may indicate the presence of metastatic disease in the skeleton.

CAT scans and bone scans are very widely used. A bone scan is a little bit better than a CAT scan in looking for these bone metastases, so the two really augment each other in detection of the disease.

Beyond these, we do have some newer imaging techniques coming into play. There’s a way of doing a bone scan with PET scanner. A PET scanner is another nuclear medicine technique that is more sensitive than a standard nuclear medicine camera, and it acquires a CAT scan at the same time. You can look at the images on the nuclear medicine technique overlaid on the CT scan to see where exactly the activity is and what it’s due to.

We can also use some agents with PET scanning to look at the skeleton. A so-called fluoride PET/CT bone scan seems to have many advantages over a conventional bone scan in terms of detecting smaller disease, more sites of disease, and things like that. MRI is also used in some cases.

Traditionally, MRI is used to evaluate specific areas, so if there’s pain in a particular area such as the skeleton,

MRI is a great way to do that. MRI is also used to look directly at the prostate gland and at the prostate bed after prostate surgery or after other therapy in the pelvis. It can be very good at detecting small volumes of disease. The problem with PET scanning and MRI scanning is that they are less accessible, although MRI is in most places now, and most major areas have access to a PET scanner.

Then there’s the issue of cost. Both techniques are costly. We need to determine if the added cost is justified by the additional information that those scans provide.

Beyond these techniques, the exciting thing for nuclear medicine is the new developments on the horizon. As we discover more about the molecular nature of disease, why cancer forms, and what makes and defines a cancer cell, those molecular discoveries can be translated into imaging studies that we can then use with PET scanning to be even more sensitive for detection of disease.

For example, there are several new molecular tracers in the United States that are approved for imaging of prostate cancer. Choline and Axumin (FACBC) are both agents approved in the United States for use with PET/CT.

Internationally, people are moving to a compound called prostate surface membrane antigen (PSMA) that can image prostate carcinoma. It seems to be even better than Choline or Axumin. The data is still a little bit undetermined at this point, but there’s a lot of excitement around these newer agents being able to seek out cancer in very small volumes anywhere it occurs in the body.

Then I guess the question becomes: when do you treat?

Dr. Rohren: Yes. That is very much the question. As we discover more and more sites of disease and smaller sites of disease, the question becomes: do we need to treat those aggressively or conservatively? We’re discovering new things about tumor biology, and we need to understand how that gets translated into the best appropriate therapy for patients.

Not a member? Join us to read the rest of our March issue on recurrent prostate cancer.

 

 

 

 


Leave a comment

Patients Speak: Getting The Gallium-68 PSMA Scan

Mr. Michael Dietrich had the gallium-68 PSMA scan as part of a clinical trial when his PSA starting rising three years after the completion of radiation therapy. He spoke to Prostatepedia about the scan and how the results altered his treatment path.

How did you find out you had prostate cancer?

Mr. Michael Dietrich: I had a bad case of prostatitis in 2006. A PSA test done at that time read a value of 6 ng/ml. My urologist was concerned and I had a six-core biopsy performed. All six cores came back negative. I was treated with antibiotics for the prostatitis, which alleviated my symptoms. The urologist thought my elevated PSA was related to the infection and did not stress close monitoring of my PSA. I didn’t know any better and I put it out of my mind. I had another bout of prostatitis in 2011. A PSA test then revealed a high value of 65 ng/ml. A 12-core biopsy (a newly established standard) was performed and revealed 80% involvement, 4+3=7 Gleason score, and seminal vesicle involvement. I don’t know if there is a relationship between my prostatitis and my cancer, but the synchronicity is odd. Either way, the prostatitis led me to my urologist and, weirdly enough, I have to say I’m grateful for it. Gratitude for prostatitis. Weird, huh? I also was diagnosed with osteoporosis at that time. I was 50 years old.

Young.

Mr. Dietrich: Yes, pretty young. Though undetected, I probably had prostate cancer at 45 years old when I had that original PSA test and biopsy done. If I had had a 12-core at the time rather than a six-core biopsy, they very well may have found it then. Needless to say, I’m a fan of 12-core biopsies.

What treatments were suggested to you and which did you choose?

Mr. Dietrich: After the tumor board at Hollings Cancer Center here in Charleston, South Carolina, discussed my case and I was presented all my options, I opted for aggressive radiation and hormone therapy. As I had seminal vesicle involvement, I believed I would need radiation anyway, as I understood typical surgical outcomes involving seminal vesicles were often not so great.

What type of radiation did you get?

Mr. Dietrich: I had both intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and brachytherapy. For about six months before treatment, I had androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). I chose to have it a little longer than normal in hopes that it would further shrink the tumors to narrow the target for radiation and further sensitize the cancer to radiation toxicity. I don’t know if the wait really helped, but in my mind it made sense. After radiation treatment was finished, I received 18 months of ADT3: Lupron (leuprolide), Casodex (bicalutamide), and Avodart (dutasteride). I’ve really been very happy with all the treatments I’ve received.

What kinds of side effects did you have from the radiation and ADT?

Mr. Dietrich: During radiation treatment, I got tired and a little achy. It also constipated me, which surprised me because a more common symptom is diarrhea. I asked for a peristaltic drug as I felt GI motility was an issue, so I was on Reglan (metoclopramide) at the end of treatment and it did help. Currently, I have the extended side effect of having to urinate a couple times a night, but it’s tolerable. I have moderate, not severe, erectile dysfunction (ED). I use Viagra (sildenafil) if necessary.

My very fine radiologist is an advocate for the use of rectal balloons during radiation treatment to help protect the colon from unwanted exposure. They were used during every treatment. Having a rectal balloon inserted in your colon (20 plus times) in conjunction with maintaining a full bladder during treatment to minimize organ movement is not a comfortable combination, but yes, it’s absolutely worth the beads of sweat you may develop on your brow it if helps with outcome and your future health.

The hormone therapy had its challenges for sure (like hot flashes, mood swings, and tender nipples), but like any other experience that a life can be presented with, be it negative or positive, I found it a learning experience.

As I was going through hormone therapy, my wife was going through menopause at the same time. We would trade the ceiling fan remote back and forth all night long dealing with our hot flashes. It was a bonding experience and it was interesting to be a guy understanding menopause.

I tried an experiment: from the day I started my hormone injections, I never shaved. I wondered how a lack of testosterone would impact beard growth and, interestingly enough, I had a 5-inch beard after my two year castrate period. Much of my body hair receded, though.

I lived in a beach town while I was on hormone therapy. If you fully want to understand how testosterone rules an adult male’s perception, remove sex hormones from your body, go to the beach, and monitor your perception and interest. An attractive, half-naked body can be as interesting as a sea gull or a dead horseshoe crab. Interesting, yes. Desirable, not so much.

I was surprised to find, at times, a certain beauty in neutrality and in being in a state of unsexually biased perception. Like the lifting of an obscuring fog to some degree. I was happy when my hormone therapy was over and I got my energy and sexual interest back, but the window of perception was interesting.

I found myself often viewing the world more like when I was a 10-year-old boy. I often experienced lightheartedness and unbiased acceptance of everybody. It was a perception benefit that I’ll never forget for the rest of my life. To this day, because of that insight, I am very aware of how hormones currently skew my perception. Aggression, arousal, competitiveness. It’s all there, but now subject to more acknowledged objectivity than before I attended eunuch university.

I’ve not heard that before.

Mr. Dietrich: Really? I am 50. I went to a liberal arts college in the 1970s where there was quite a bit of experimentation with mind-altering substances, myself included. Controversial, I know, but maybe that early use of hallucinatory drugs in my formative years did set a template for accepting/embracing shifts in perception. Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, I would encourage anybody entering hormone therapy to not be overly wary of it and realize that as your testosterone levels fall, so falls your caring about the fact that your testosterone is going away. Testosterone tends to be very possessive of itself. Be flexible with its passing. Speaking of mind-altering drugs, I was on a low dose of the antidepressant Effexor (venlafaxine) for hot flashes. It cut back hot flashes by 50% and did impact mood as well. It no doubt helped my attitude.

Getting off the Effexor (venlafaxine) definitely requires gradual weaning. I missed a dose or two by accident and felt quite nuts. It requires quite a structured commitment, a commitment not to be deviated from.

What did all this do for the cancer control? Did the radiation and ADT keep your prostate cancer in check?

Mr. Dietrich: My hormone therapy ended in 2013. My testosterone came back to my normal (between

700 and 900) and my PSA stabilized between 0.2 and 0.4. Normal readings for a patient who had received radiation, that is. After three years of stability, my PSA started rising mid-2016.

My mother passed away in January of 2016. Right afterward, my PSA started rising. My father passed on as well in December. My parents lived next door to us and we grew incredibly close. Perhaps it was coincidental, but I can’t help but wonder if the extreme grief and stress I experienced exacerbated my recurrence and contributed to my short three-month doubling time.

Progressively, my PSA rose beyond 2 plus my nadir of 0.15, signaling likely recurrence in a radiated patient. I had a skeletal CAT scan and an MRI. The bone scan was negative. The MRI was largely negative, but it revealed one—and I can quote—area of enhancement involving the right apex and the right posterolateral midgland to base, which could possibly represent residual recurrent disease, and no lymphadenectomy or other metastatic disease to the pelvis. My oncologist here in Hollings, South Carolina, mentioned the gallium-68 PSMA scan. We found a clinical trial at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), which I went ahead and joined.

You traveled so far to get the scan?

Mr. Dietrich: Yes. I had options somewhere on the East Coast and in Texas, but I chose UCSF because I have friends and family out there.

What was it like to get the scan?

Mr. Dietrich: I had to wait for about a month for a space to become available on the clinical trial. The scan generally costs $4,000, but my insurance covered it.

It wasn’t much different than an MRI. Very benign. I was worried about side effects, but I can’t say it was any more than with the MRI I had done with a tracer involved. I guess the only thing that really comes to mind is that there was a fairly ominous stainless steel-encased device that shielded the syringe from radiation leakage. I didn’t have any side effects from the solution or the scan. Within days, I communicated with the team performing the scan and they sent me an image and reading. There was one active 3mm node on my right side and a vague, nondescript one on the left, indeterminate but suspicious. No uptake shown on the prostate gland or anywhere else.

What was the plan after imaging?

Mr. Dietrich: That was a process to navigate. Treating oligometastatic disease is controversial with many people feeling that there is no long-term survival benefit in local treatment of local lesions and the correct treatment path is to go on systemic therapy. I was presented with chemotherapy (docetaxel) in conjunction with ADT3. I wasn’t ready for that and my gut instinct (or an extreme sense of denial) kept me looking for an alternative.

Having already had radiation to my pelvis, I was wary of further exposure so I looked into lymph node surgery.

I discovered Dr. Jeffrey Karnes at the Mayo Clinic, who regularly performs lymph node dissections on oligometastatic patients.

He performed a biopsy of my prostate and seminal vesicles, which luckily turned out negative on all cores.

On July 12, 2017, I had the lymph node dissection. Twenty-seven lymph nodes were removed. The pathology revealed two active nodes, the very same two nodes that the gallium-68 PSMA scan revealed. I’m in recovery right now from that surgery.

If you compare the gallium-68 PSMA scan to my MRI, the MRI suggested possible local disease in the prostate and nothing in my lymph nodes. The gallium-68 PSMA scan didn’t show anything in the prostate but did show active lymph glands, which was accurate. It was clear. Very clear.

Had I not had that gallium-68 PSMA scan done, it wouldn’t have been clear to me what to do. The clarity of the scan and the biopsy made me comfortable with the option of lymph node dissection, which in my situation may offer an up to a 20% chance of durable remission/cure or, if nothing else, may extend my time till I have to consider systemic treatment. A gamble perhaps, but one worth taking I feel, especially as I currently have no gross negative side effects.

How is the recovery going?

Mr. Dietrich: So far, I just have regular incision tenderness and soreness. No infection or anything else. The gastrointestinal recovery is a slow process. They have to really move your guts around quite a bit and anesthetize your intestines in order to work. Motility and digestive activity take a while to return even if you’re not feeling pain. I should probably have waited a couple more days for the flight back home, as it was just a week after surgery.

Do you have any advice for men who are considering getting this scan?

Mr. Dietrich: I wouldn’t hesitate. When I compare the results of what my MRI read compared to the clarity of the gallium-68 PSMA scan, it’s a no-brainer.

Do you have any thoughts about participating in a clinical trial?

Mr. Dietrich: Well, the gallium trial was just an investigational scan, not a comparative trial involving placebos or a control group. It just felt like any other scan.

As far as my thoughts of seeking treatment options, it can be a frustrating process as you can be presented contradictory beliefs on what’s your best path. Keeping focused on current data and talking to several educated oncologists is essential.

Collect data from everywhere, remain objective, and don’t stop. Web health message boards can be extremely good sources of both knowledge and support. There are other patients present on boards who are fighting for their lives as well and are very aggressive hounds on collecting and sharing current clinical trial, evidence-based data.

I own a company that services pathology instruments here in the Southeast. I’m always telling my technicians to practice distant objectivity and try to revoke preconceived notions when diagnosing a complicated, failed instrument. Preconceived beliefs can block our subconscious mind from connecting abstract dots into a correct forward path of figuring out a complicated problem.

Beginner’s mind?

Mr. Dietrich: Yes, beginner’s mind. That’s a good way to put it. Be confident. As a patient, you are in a position where you might be more open-minded, motivated, and educated on current data than even some physicians. You are fighting for your life and if you remain open-minded and if you don’t have a preconceived belief or a professional position to defend, you can think your way clearly.

Subscribe to read the rest of our October conversations about advances in imaging.


Leave a comment

How Has Imaging Impacted Treatment?

Shore_001Dr. Neal Shore comments on this month’s discussion of the ways imaging has impacted prostate cancer treatment.

Imaging is important for newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients who may or may not have localized disease, and it’s especially important for advanced prostate cancer patients, whether they continue to be androgen sensitive or have developed some level of androgen resistance. For earlier stages of disease, there has been a lot of interest regarding multiparametric MRI. Nonetheless, the efficacy of multiparametric MRI is limited by the expertise of the interpreting radiologist. The fusion technology software championed by several of the academic centers has been rolled out without consistency within the community. For some practices, it was adopted due to marketplace competition and the device developers’ promotions. Companies that develop multiparametric fusion technology have not made a significant contribution to the advancement of urologic and radiologic educational needs. That said, some groups incorporated dedicated specialists within their practice to train for high-quality multiparametric fusion-based biopsies. Purchasing the newest promising technology without ensuring a framework to optimize clinical results will lead to poor implementation. In the United States, MRI is still mostly recommended for patients who have had a negative prostate biopsy, but due to age, PSA kinetics, or rectal examination, there is still a concern of possible malignant disease that was missed on the first biopsy. MRI is most uniformly accepted for additional information when evaluating patients for the need for a second biopsy. MRI will no doubt have an ongoing role in the active surveillance population. MRI will no doubt have an eventual role in decision making for possible first biopsies.

 

There has been a lot of very good, evidence-based literature coming from European countries that suggests that whole-body MRI, with the right software protocol, is exceptionally helpful in evaluating metastatic disease. Unfortunately, in the United States, this protocol takes 45 to 60 minutes to accomplish, and unfortunately, translates to a challenging economic utility model for the MRI efficiency from an administrator perspective. There are many interesting and promising blood-, tissue, and urine-based markers, genomic assays, and additional imaging techniques, which require ongoing trials to determine how best to use them for the most efficient value-based care model. No single test—MRI or any other blood-, tissue-, or urine-based marker—is perfect. Eventually, we will hopefully develop a cost-effective algorithm that combines a panel of all the different biomarkers. MRI is part of that discussion, but we don’t have that sorted out currently. There have been multiple PET scan technologies developed in the last several years that have been assessed for improved potential sensitivity and specificity, and ultimately, to improve the accuracy of the data that shows cancer spread and its location. MRI and Axumin PET scanshave been approved for advanced prostate cancer patients. There have been other PET scans such as FDG, C-11 Acetate, C-11 Choline, sodium fluoride, which have not received widespread reimbursement approvals nor widespread accessibility. There is also no consensus recommendation for these technologies.


2 Comments

Advances In Imaging

In October, we’re discussing advances in imaging that could dramatically improve how we treat prostate cancer. (Issue to be released to subscribers on Wednesday October 4.) In our Guest Commentary, Dr. Neal Shore does an excellent job summarizing these advances from a urological perspective, expanding on the interviews by Drs. Matthew Cooperberg and Raoul Concepcion. Dr. Michael Zelefsky discusses the impact these new imaging approaches, especially MRI, have in prostate cancer treatment planning.

Several common themes emerge. One is that the American healthcare system renders the best imaging technologies so expensive that rapid implementation at the community level is limited. The situation in Europe is markedly different; costs are 70-80% lower. As a result, Europe is leading both the development of better imaging technologies and the delivery of these technologies at a community level.

Another common theme is that advanced training and experience are required to use these imaging technologies well. Dr. Cooperberg does an excellent job of outlining this problem in prostate multiparameter MRI. The message for you is just because a nearby medical facility has purchased state-of-the-art imaging equipment does not mean they know how to use that equipment well. For now, travel to centers with a documented track record in using a new imaging technology.

Perhaps the most important point is that before a new imaging technology becomes standard treatment, extensive clinical trials need to validate the technique. How do you know when an imaging technique has passed such scrutiny? One landmark is whether or not the imaging technology has been FDA approved. For example, the C-11 Choline and Axumin imaging scans are FDA approved and covered by Medicare to detect metastatic prostate cancer. The Gallium-68 PSMA PET/CT scan is very promising, but not yet FDA approved.

In several of this month’s conversations, we mention the role of imaging in the management of oligometastatic disease. In oligometastatic disease treatment, we use radiation or surgery to eliminate metastases, potentially delaying cancer’s progression for a clinically useful time. By now, it is clear that there are patients who benefit from this treatment.

What is not clear is how effective we are at identifying who those patients are. This will only be resolved by well-designed randomized clinical trials. Fortunately, such trials are in progress and additional trials planned.

Charles E. Myers, Jr., MD

 

Not a member? Join us to read this month’s conversations.