Objective
Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a heterogeneous disease with varying survival outcomes. This study investigated whether baseline PSMA PET/CT parameters are associated with survival and treatment response.

Methods
Sixty mCRPC patients underwent [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT before treatment with androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs) or chemotherapy. Intensity-based parameters, volumetric parameters, metastatic sites and DmaxVox (distance between the two outermost voxels) from baseline PSMA PET/CT were collected, as well as age, Gleason score and laboratory parameters. Cox regression analysis evaluated their prognostic value for overall survival (OS). Additionally, a preliminary lesion-level analysis was done (n = 241 lesions) with lesion location and twelve radiomic features selected from previous literature. Logistic regression evaluated their association with PSMA PET/CT-based lesion progression after 3–4 months of treatment.

Results
Total tumour volume (PSMA-TV) (HR = 1.41 per doubling [1.17–1.70]), total lesion uptake (TL-PSMA) (HR = 1.40 per doubling [1.16–1.69]) and DmaxVox (HR = 1.31 per 10 cm increase [1.07–1.62]) were prognostic for OS, each independent of baseline PSA level (HR = 0.82 per doubling [0.68–0.98]), haemoglobin level (HR = 0.68 per mmol/L increase [0.49–0.95]) and line of treatment. On lesion-level, location (prostate vs bone OR = 0.23 [0.06–0.83]) and SUVmean (OR = 1.72 per doubling [1.08–2.75]) were independent prognostic markers for lesion progression, morphological and texture-based radiomic features were not.

Conclusion
Baseline PSMA PET/CT scans have prognostic value in mCRPC patients and can potentially aid in treatment decision-making. DmaxVox can serve as a simpler alternative to PSMA-TV when automated segmentation software is not available. When combined with PSMA-TV, lower PSA levels indicated worse OS, which may be a marker of tumour dedifferentiation. Further research is needed to validate these models in larger patient cohorts.@en

Background
In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels to evaluate treatment response is not always accurate. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of PSMA PET/CT at specific time points for evaluating treatment response and predicting survival in mCRPC patients, compared to PSA.

Methods
Sixty mCRPC patients underwent [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT at baseline and for treatment response evaluation of either androgen receptor-targeted agents (after 3 months) or chemotherapy (after completion), and were retrospectively analysed. Visual assessment categorised overall response and response of the worst responding lesion as partial response, stable disease, or progressive disease, using the EAU/EANM criteria. Additionally, percentage changes in SUVmax, total tumour volume and total lesion uptake (tumour volume * SUVmean) were calculated. PSA response was defined according to the PCWG3 criteria. Cox regression analysis identified predictors of overall survival.

Results
PSMA PET/CT and PSA response were discordant in 47 % of patients, and PSMA PET/CT response was worse in 89 % of these cases. Overall response on PSMA PET/CT independently predicted overall survival (progression versus non-progression: HR = 4.05, p < 0.001), outperforming PSA response (progression versus non-progression: HR = 2.53, p = 0.010) and other PSMA PET/CT parameters. Among patients with a PSA decline of > 50 %, 31 % showed progressive disease on PSMA PET/CT, correlating with higher mortality risk (progression versus non-progression: HR = 4.38, p = 0.008). No flare in PSMA uptake was observed in this cohort.

Conclusions
PSMA PET/CT for assessing treatment response at predefined time points was superior to PSA-based response for predicting overall survival in mCRPC patients treated with androgen receptor-targeted agents and chemotherapy. PSMA PET/CT showed the ability to detect disease progression earlier than PSA levels, which can affect treatment decisions and has the potential to improve patient outcomes. We recommend further research to validate these findings in larger patient cohorts, to extend the number of treatments, and to evaluate cost-effectiveness and impact on patient outcomes.@en