Clinical impact of PSMA PET/CT in primary prostate cancer compared to conventional nodal and distant staging: a retrospective single center study

Table 3 Comparison of conventional and PSMA PET/CT staging. n = 64 patients

A. Staging frequencies
N stage		CT	MRI	Conventional^a	PSMA PET/CT
negative		44 (69%)	43 (67%)	41 (64%)	38 (59%)
equivocal		9 (14%)	8 (13%)	10 (16%)	4 (6%)
positive		11 (17%)	8 (13%)	13 (20%)	22 (34%)
not available		–	5 (8%)^b
M stage	Bone scintigraphy	CT	MRI	Conventional^a	PSMA PET/CT
negative	44 (69%)	54 (84%)	3 (5%)	37 (58%)	48 (75%)
equivocal^a	9 (14%)	6 (9%)	5 (8%)	15 (23%)	3 (5%)
	• M1b: 9 (14%)	• M1a: 2 (3%)	• M1b: 9 (14%)		• M1b: 3 (5%)
		• M1b: 4 (6%)
positive	11 (17%)	4 (6%)	0	12 (19%)	13 (20%)
					• M1a: 2 (3%)
					• M1b: 9 (14%)
					• M1c: 2 (3%)
not reported			51 (80%)
not available^b			5 (8%)
B. Contingency tables for observed staging frequencies
N stage
	negative	equivocal	positive	Totals
Conventional^a	41	10	13	64
PSMA PET/CT	38	4	22	64
Totals	79	14	35	128
X² (2, N = 64) = 5.0; p = .0821
	negative	equivocal	positive	Totals
CT	44	9	11	64
PSMA PET/CT	38	4	22	64
Totals	82	13	33	128
X² (2, N = 64) = 6.0; p = .049076*
	negative	equivocal	positive	Totals
MRI	43	8	8	59
PSMA PET/CT	38	4	22	64
Totals	81	12	30	123
X² (2, N = 64) = 8.0; p = .018451*
M stage
	negative	equivocal	positive	Totals
Conventional^a	37	15	12	64
PSMA PET/CT	48	3	13	64
Totals	85	18	25	128
X² (2, N = 64) = 9.5; p = .008811*
	negative	equivocal	positive	Totals
Bone scintigraphy	44	9	11	64
PSMA PET/CT	48	3	13	64
Totals	92	12	24	128
X² (2, N = 64) = 3.3; p = .188193
	negative	equivocal	positive	Totals
CT	54	6	4	64
PSMA PET/CT	48	3	13	64
Totals	102	9	17	128
X² (2, N = 64) = 6.1; p = .046943*

^acomposed conventional stage grouping results of bone scintigraphy, CT and MRI
^bin 5 patients no MRI available due to evident distant metastases on PSMA PET/CT [3], due to severe claustrophobia [1] and performed elsewhere [1]
*denotes significance at alpha. 05 (Chi-square test of independence)

ISSN: 1471-2407