Initial report of a randomized trial of post-prostatectomy prostate cancer radiotherapy using either fluciclovine ( <sup>18</sup> F) or PSMA ( <sup>68</sup> Ga) PET/CT for target dose-escalation.

326 Background: Fluciclovine PET-guided prostate cancer (PCa) radiotherapy (XRT) improves failure-free survival (FFS) over conventional imaging (CI) alone in post-prostatectomy (RRP) recurrence (EMPIRE-1, PMID: 33971152). In this randomized trial we explored dose-escalation (DE) to sites of PET uptake (not done in EMPIRE-1) using either fluciclovine or 68 GaPSMA PET/CT-guided XRT and compared cancer control to the fluciclovine PET arm of EMPIRE-1 2Y failure free survival (FFS) of 79.6%. Methods: From 2019-2023, 140 pts w/ PCa with detectable PSA post-RRP &amp; negative CI were stratified by: (a) PSA (&lt;1.0 v ≥ 1.0 ng/mL), (b) adverse path [+ECE, +SV, +margin, +node] (0 v any) &amp; (c) ADT (Y v N) &amp; randomized to XRT directed by fluciclovine (Arm 1) v 68 GaPSMA (Arm 2). In both Arms, XRT decisions were PET determined: (A) extrapelvic (EP) uptake (no XRT); (B) pelvic uptake (XRT to pelvis + prostate bed [PB]); (C) PB only uptake (XRT to PB); &amp; (D) no uptake (XRT to PB). Pelvic dose: 45.0-50.4/1.8 Gy (with optional DE {to PET uptake} up to 56 Gy); PB dose: 64.8-70.2 Gy (with optional DE up to 76 Gy). Failure was defined as in EMPIRE-1. Primary endpoint, declared a priori, was 2Y FFS comparing entire cohort [Arms (1+2)] to the 79.6% 2Y FFS of the fluciclovine PET arm of EMPIRE-1 using Z-test. KM curves for Arms 1 &amp; 2 were compared using log-rank test. Univariate (UV) &amp; multivariable (MV) analyses were performed by Cox proportional hazards model on demographic, disease, &amp; treatment factors. Provider-reported [acute &amp; late, GI &amp; GU] toxicities were compared using χ 2 test. Results: 140 pts were enrolled (Arm 1: 70; Arm 2: 70). Arms were balanced on age, race, PSA, GG, ECE, SV, margin, node, &amp; ADT use. 5 pts in Arm 1 and 1 pt in Arm 2 withdrew before PET. For pts completing XRT (Arm 1: 59; Arm 2: 60), median FU was 2.00 years. For primary endpoint, 2Y FFS for Arm (1+2) 87.4 v 79.6% target from EMPIRE-1 (p=0.018). There were no significant differences in 2Y FFS between Arm 1 v Arm 2 (88.2% v 86.9%, p=0.604). PET uptake in Arms 1 v 2 were: EP: 5 v 8; pelvic+/-PB: 10 v 10; PB only: 47 v 24; none: 3 v 27. Typical PB DE (n=74) was 74 Gy &amp; pelvis DE (n= 16) was 55 Gy. For Arm 1 v Arm 2, covariates reaching p &lt;0.10 on UV analysis were: +SV (p=0.010), +margin (p=0.039), PB uptake (p=0.068), &amp; PB boost (p=0.085), and on MV analyses were: +SV (p=0.004), ADT (p=0.067), +margin (p=0.069), &amp; PB boost (p=0.096). Toxicity was similar &amp; low in both Arms 1 &amp; 2. Conclusions: Although fluciclovine had higher diagnostic yield in the PB &amp; 68 GaPSMA had higher yield for EP disease, both radiotracers had similar yield in the pelvic LN, &amp; both radiotracers had similar impact on FFS in this setting. Integrating either fluciclovine or 68 GaPSMA into post-RRP XRT planning for DE to sites of PET uptake in PB or pelvis resulted in improved FFS over a prior trial in which no DE was performed; other factors may also have contributed to this observed difference. Clinical trial information: NCT03762759 .

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-02-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.5_suppl.326
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.04
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Initial report of a randomized trial of post-prostatectomy prostate cancer radiotherapy using either fluciclovine ( 18 F) or PSMA ( 68 Ga) PET/CT for target dose-escalation.

Viraj A. Master, Shreyas Joshi, Eduard Schreibmann, Joseph W. Shelton et al.
2 citations
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
3.04
article

Initial report of a randomized trial of post-prostatectomy prostate cancer radiotherapy using either fluciclovine ( 18 F) or PSMA ( 68 Ga) PET/CT for target dose-escalation.

Viraj A. Master, Shreyas Joshi, Eduard Schreibmann, Joseph W. Shelton, Pretesh Patel, Bruce Hershatter, Vishal R. Dhere, David M. Schuster, Mehmet Asım Bilen, Sagar A. Patel, Ismaheel O. Lawal, Subir Goyal, Ömer Küçük, Aliza Mushtaq, Olayinka A. Abiodun-Ojo, Bridget Fielder, Sheela Hanasoge, Nikhil Sebastian, Raghuveer Halkar, Ashesh B. Jani
article en
2 citations

Abstract

326 Background: Fluciclovine PET-guided prostate cancer (PCa) radiotherapy (XRT) improves failure-free survival (FFS) over conventional imaging (CI) alone in post-prostatectomy (RRP) recurrence (EMPIRE-1, PMID: 33971152). In this randomized trial we explored dose-escalation (DE) to sites of PET uptake (not done in EMPIRE-1) using either fluciclovine or 68 GaPSMA PET/CT-guided XRT and compared cancer control to the fluciclovine PET arm of EMPIRE-1 2Y failure free survival (FFS) of 79.6%. Methods: From 2019-2023, 140 pts w/ PCa with detectable PSA post-RRP &amp; negative CI were stratified by: (a) PSA (&lt;1.0 v ≥ 1.0 ng/mL), (b) adverse path [+ECE, +SV, +margin, +node] (0 v any) &amp; (c) ADT (Y v N) &amp; randomized to XRT directed by fluciclovine (Arm 1) v 68 GaPSMA (Arm 2). In both Arms, XRT decisions were PET determined: (A) extrapelvic (EP) uptake (no XRT); (B) pelvic uptake (XRT to pelvis + prostate bed [PB]); (C) PB only uptake (XRT to PB); &amp; (D) no uptake (XRT to PB). Pelvic dose: 45.0-50.4/1.8 Gy (with optional DE {to PET uptake} up to 56 Gy); PB dose: 64.8-70.2 Gy (with optional DE up to 76 Gy). Failure was defined as in EMPIRE-1. Primary endpoint, declared a priori, was 2Y FFS comparing entire cohort [Arms (1+2)] to the 79.6% 2Y FFS of the fluciclovine PET arm of EMPIRE-1 using Z-test. KM curves for Arms 1 &amp; 2 were compared using log-rank test. Univariate (UV) &amp; multivariable (MV) analyses were performed by Cox proportional hazards model on demographic, disease, &amp; treatment factors. Provider-reported [acute &amp; late, GI &amp; GU] toxicities were compared using χ 2 test. Results: 140 pts were enrolled (Arm 1: 70; Arm 2: 70). Arms were balanced on age, race, PSA, GG, ECE, SV, margin, node, &amp; ADT use. 5 pts in Arm 1 and 1 pt in Arm 2 withdrew before PET. For pts completing XRT (Arm 1: 59; Arm 2: 60), median FU was 2.00 years. For primary endpoint, 2Y FFS for Arm (1+2) 87.4 v 79.6% target from EMPIRE-1 (p=0.018). There were no significant differences in 2Y FFS between Arm 1 v Arm 2 (88.2% v 86.9%, p=0.604). PET uptake in Arms 1 v 2 were: EP: 5 v 8; pelvic+/-PB: 10 v 10; PB only: 47 v 24; none: 3 v 27. Typical PB DE (n=74) was 74 Gy &amp; pelvis DE (n= 16) was 55 Gy. For Arm 1 v Arm 2, covariates reaching p &lt;0.10 on UV analysis were: +SV (p=0.010), +margin (p=0.039), PB uptake (p=0.068), &amp; PB boost (p=0.085), and on MV analyses were: +SV (p=0.004), ADT (p=0.067), +margin (p=0.069), &amp; PB boost (p=0.096). Toxicity was similar &amp; low in both Arms 1 &amp; 2. Conclusions: Although fluciclovine had higher diagnostic yield in the PB &amp; 68 GaPSMA had higher yield for EP disease, both radiotracers had similar yield in the pelvic LN, &amp; both radiotracers had similar impact on FFS in this setting. Integrating either fluciclovine or 68 GaPSMA into post-RRP XRT planning for DE to sites of PET uptake in PB or pelvis resulted in improved FFS over a prior trial in which no DE was performed; other factors may also have contributed to this observed difference. Clinical trial information: NCT03762759 .

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(5_suppl)
Emory University (US), Emory University Hospital (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
3.04
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.