Comparative analysis of PSMA-RADS Version 2.0 versus bone uptake metastatic probability (BUMP) score for characterising focal bone uptake on [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT in prostate cancer – a multicentre evaluation

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Purpose Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT is widely used in prostate cancer management, but unspecific bone uptake (UBU) remains a diagnostic challenge particularly with [18F]PSMA-1007. Bone uptake metastatic probability (BUMP) score - a composite imaging-clinical model, was compared with PSMA Reporting and Data System (PSMA-RADS, Version 2) for predicting skeletal metastases in UBU. Methods A real-world cohort of [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT scans performed at three tertiary cancer centres was retrospectively analysed. Bone lesions with focal PSMA uptake were evaluated. SUV max , CT-derived mean Hounsfield unit and androgen deprivation therapy status were recorded to calculate BUMP score for each lesion. Lesional PSMA-RADS scores were assigned by experienced radiologists. Ground truth was established using follow-up imaging, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics and multidisciplinary consensus. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses assessed diagnostic performance. Results 130 patients (median age 70 years) with 412 bone lesions were analysed; 60.9% ( n = 251) of lesions were metastatic. Median SUV max was higher in malignant than benign lesions: 7.54 (Interquartile range (IQR) 10.3) versus 3.53 (IQR 1.51). BUMP achieved an AUROC of 0.812 (95% CI: 0.636—0.931), the optimal threshold was 0.134 yielding an F1 score of 0.800. PSMA-RADS v2.0 outperformed BUMP with higher sensitivity and specificity (98% and 96%, versus 74% and 80%). In equivocal PSMA-RADS Score 3 lesions ( n = 44), BUMP showed reduced discrimination (AUROC 0.61, 95% CI 0.457–0.781). Conclusion BUMP had good predictive ability for classifying bone metastases but underperformed compared with human-led PSMA-RADS assessment. For equivocal lesions BUMP offered limited added value, highlighting the importance of expert interpretation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.