Burkett, Brian J.

AbstractBackgroundEvidence for abnormal amyloid‐β (Aβ) plaque accumulation is necessary prior to initiating anti‐amyloid therapy in early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). While the clinical trials for lecanemab and related drugs utilized positron emission tomography (PET) to demonstrate brain amyloidosis, current appropriate use recommendations for clinical practice consider PET or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers as satisfactory for this purpose. Here, we present four clinical cases where CSF biomarker results were discordant from amyloid PET, with the potential to result in erroneous treatment targeting.MethodPatients were seen at a tertiary care subspecialty clinic in consideration for lecanemab therapy. All patients had office examination, neuropsychological assessment, structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), amyloid PET (with either 11C‐Pittsburgh compound B or 18F‐florbetapir), CSF AD biomarkers (Roche Elecsys p‐tau181/Aβ42 and Fujirebio Lumipulse Aβ42/Aβ40 ratios), and apolipoprotein E (APOE) allele testing. Amyloid PET interpretations were made by consensus visual review from experienced readers.ResultAll four patients had clinical diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia (Table 1). Two patients had positive CSF p‐tau181/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 ratios with negative amyloid PET (indicating sparse to no neuritic plaques). Case 1 displayed aphasia (characterized by anomia and deep dysgraphia) and imaging findings possibly compatible with semantic dementia. Case 2 displayed a gait abnormality and imaging signs of abnormal CSF dynamics. Two other patients had negative CSF p‐tau181/Aβ42 measures with positive amyloid PET (indicating moderate to frequent neuritic plaques). In those instances, the clinical syndrome and imaging studies were strongly supportive of AD and the CSF Aβ42/40 ratio was “likely positive” (Table 1). For one patient (Case 4), tau PET and Lumipulse plasma p‐tau217 concentration were both positive.ConclusionClinicians prescribing anti‐amyloid therapies should be aware of the possibility for CSF biomarkers to be discordant from amyloid PET status in select scenarios. These cases highlight the value of considering PET imaging in the presence of clinically atypical features, concern for mixed etiology, or strong clinical suspicion for AD despite negative CSF biomarkers. Larger series are needed to identify broader patterns contributing to biomarker discordance by assay, modality (PET versus CSF/plasma measures), and medical/neurologic comorbidities.

ImportanceAsymmetric oropharynx uptake on positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is a common incidental finding and often prompts otolaryngology referral to rule out malignancy; however, the true risk of malignancy based on this finding is unknown.ObjectiveTo identify the incidence of oropharynx cancer in patients with incidental asymmetric oropharynx PET uptake.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this retrospective cohort study, patients 18 years and older undergoing PET/CT scans at Mayo Clinic between January 2001 and December 2018 were included. Patients with a history or pretest suspicion of oropharynx cancer were excluded. Data were analyzed from March 2021 to December 2023.ExposureBlinded radiologic review of imaging studies, including measurement of maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) of the ipsilateral side of concern and contralateral side. Retrospective medical record review for associated clinical data.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary study outcome was the incidence of oropharynx cancer diagnosis in patients with asymmetric oropharynx PET uptake. The primary outcome was formulated before data collection.ResultsOf the 1854 patients identified with asymmetric oropharynx PET uptake, 327 (17.6%) met inclusion criteria. Of these, 173 (52.9%) were male, and the median (range) age was 65.0 (24.8-90.7) years. The mean (SD) follow-up interval was 52.1 (43.4) months. A total of 18 of 327 patients (5.5%) were newly diagnosed with oropharynx cancer. The most common diagnosis was squamous cell carcinoma (n = 9), followed by lymphoma (n = 8), and sarcoma (n = 1). Patients with an incidental diagnosis of oropharynx cancer had higher mean (SD) ipsilateral SUVmax (8.7 [3.7] vs 5.3 [1.9]) and SUVmax ratio (3.0 [1.6] vs 1.6 [0.6]) compared with patients with normal examination findings. SUVmax ratio and difference were found to be good discriminators of oropharynx cancer, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 86.3% (95% CI, 76.4-94.6) and 85.8% (95% CI, 74.8-94.6), respectively. Patients with a new diagnosis of oropharynx cancer were more likely to have a corresponding CT abnormality than those with normal examination findings (6 of 18 [33%] vs 24 of 295 [8.1%]). Patients with concerning lesions on oropharynx palpation by an otolaryngology health care professional were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with oropharynx cancer compared with patients with normal examination findings (odds ratio, 28.4; 95% CI, 6.6-145.8).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, while incidental asymmetric oropharynx PET uptake was common, a new diagnosis of oropharynx cancer was not and potentially results in a large volume of unnecessary referrals and work-up. Using SUVmax ratio, SUVmax difference, and CT correlation may increase the benefit of referral. Patients with a palpable oropharynx lesion and asymmetric oropharynx PET uptake should undergo confirmatory biopsy.

49 Background: Ductal carcinoma (DC) is the second most commonly encountered histologic variant of prostate cancer. Previous studies have described its molecular features and aggressive behavior, but few have explored the performance of PSMA PET/CT in the initial staging and follow-up of DC. Methods: To address this gap, we performed a single-institution retrospective analysis using the Mayo Clinic PSMA PET database. All patients receiving a PSMA PET/CT scan in the interval of January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022, were eligible for inclusion. Cases were filtered and categorized by histology at the time of diagnosis to select for pure DAC and mixed ductal variants. Trained research personnel annotated disease- and treatment-related variables. A board-certified radiologist performed tumor burden segmentation with calculations of SUV max, total lesion SUV mean and volume, and total lesion uptake, and ascribed a miPSMA expression score. Results: We queried 1792 patients from our PSMA PET/CT registry and identified 32 (1.8%) patients with a pathologically confirmed DC, including 8 (25%) patients with pure ductal and 25 (75%) patients with mixed histology. The indication for PSMA PET/CT was biochemical progression or restaging for 29 (91%) patients and initial staging for 3 (9%) patients. The median (IQR) time from prostate cancer diagnosis to PSMA PET scan was 41.6 (11.5-64.7) months, during this time 50% (n= 16) of patients developed CRPC. At the time of the PSMA PET/CT scan, the median age was 70 years, the median (IQR) PSA was 0.5 ng/mL (0.2-2.6). The distribution of metastatic spread and quantitative imaging parameters from PSMA PET are shown in the Table. Conclusions: Despite low PSA at the time of imaging, PSMA PET/CT frequently detected high volume osseous and/or visceral metastases in patients with DC. However, it is noteworthy that more than 50% of patients with DC had a low miPSMA score (0-1). Additional studies are needed to better understand the performance of novel imaging modalities when evaluating variant prostate cancers. [Table: see text]

220 Background: There is a critical need to identify biomarkers of response and resistance to 177Lu-PSMA-617. Post-hoc analyses of VISION have explored the prognostic and predictive value of select clinical parameters. However, we are still in the early stages of deciphering which molecular changes are associated with favorable or adverse treatment outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), who received 177Lu-PSMA-617 at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, in the interval of March 2022 to March 2023. We included patients who provided research authorization, had a baseline PSA of at least 2 ng/mL, received at least 2 cycles of treatment, and had circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) genomic profiling performed by Guardant (83 gene panel) within 60 days of treatment initiation. Clinical, laboratory, genomic, and radiomic parameters were abstracted by trained research personnel. Two independent analyses of “response” and “resistance” were performed. Response to treatment was defined as 50% or greater decrease in PSA from baseline (PSA50 response: dichotomized yes versus no), and resistance was defined as non-decreasing or rising PSA during treatment (PSA non-response: dichotomized yes versus no). Associations between gene alterations and response and resistance were evaluated via Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Between March 2022 and March 2023, 273 patients received cycle 1 of 177Lu-PSMA-617. A total of 108 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median number of cycles at data cutoff was 6 (IQR: 4,6) with 57 (53%) patients receiving all 6 planned cycles. The median PSA at baseline was 16.65 ng/ml (IQR: 5.20, 66.12). A total of 65 patients (60%) experienced a PSA50 response. No molecular alterations were associated with a higher rate of PSA50 response; however, alterations in ARID1A, AR, and CHEK2 were associated with lack of PSA50 response (Fisher’s exact p < 0.05). Of the 108 evaluable patients, 20 (19%) met criteria for PSA non-response. Alterations in AR, ARID1A, MYC, TP53, CHEK2, ATM, EGFR, and NOTCH1 were significantly associated with PSA non-response (Fisher’s exact p < 0.05); in each case, the presence of the alteration was positively associated with resistance (i.e., more instance of PSA non-response). No biomarkers were found to be inversely associated with PSA non-response. Conclusions: ctDNA assessed by commercially available, targeted sequencing panels prior to treatment may be useful in identifying the patients least likely to benefit from 177Lu-PSMA-617. Further work is ongoing to integrate ctDNA findings with clinical parameters in the hopes of understanding the factors mediating response and resistance to therapy.

Abstract Background: Many patients use artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots as a rapid source of health information. This raises important questions about the reliability and effectiveness of AI chatbots in delivering accurate and understandable information. Purpose: To evaluate and compare the accuracy, conciseness, and readability of responses from OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard to patient inquiries concerning the novel 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Two experts listed the 12 most commonly asked questions by patients on 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy. These twelve questions were prompted to OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard. AI-generated responses were distributed using an online survey platform (Qualtrics) and blindly rated by eight experts. The performances of the AI chatbots were evaluated and compared across three domains: accuracy, conciseness, and readability. Additionally, potential safety concerns associated with AI-generated answers were also examined. The Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were utilized to compare the performances of AI chatbots. Results: Eight experts participated in the survey, evaluating 12 AI-generated responses across the three domains of accuracy, conciseness, and readability, resulting in 96 assessments (12 responses x 8 experts) for each domain per chatbot. ChatGPT-4 provided more accurate answers than Bard (2.95 ± 0.671 vs 2.73 ± 0.732, p=0.027). Bard's responses had better readability than ChatGPT-4 (2.79 ± 0.408 vs 2.94 ± 0.243, p=0.003). Both ChatGPT-4 and Bard achieved comparable conciseness scores (3.14 ± 0.659 vs 3.11 ± 0.679, p=0.798). Experts categorized the AI-generated responses as incorrect or partially correct at a rate of 16.6% for ChatGPT-4 and 29.1% for Bard. Bard's answers contained significantly more misleading information than those of ChatGPT-4 (p = 0.039). Conclusion: AI chatbots have gained significant attention, and their performance is continuously improving. Nonetheless, these technologies still need further improvements to be considered reliable and credible sources for patients seeking medical information on 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy.

Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in prostate cancer has advanced significantly in the past decade with prostate cancer targeted radiopharmaceuticals now playing a growing role in diagnosis, staging, and treatment. This narrative review focuses on the most commonly used PET radiopharmaceuticals in the USA: prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), fluciclovine, and choline. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) is used in many other malignancies, but rarely in prostate cancer. Previous literature is discussed regarding each radiopharmaceutical’s utility in the settings of screening/diagnosis, initial staging, biochemical recurrence, advanced disease, and evaluation prior to targeted radiopharmaceutical therapy and radiation therapy. PET imaging has demonstrated utility over traditional imaging in various scenarios; however, there are few head-to-head studies comparing PET radiopharmaceuticals. PSMA radiopharmaceuticals are the newest tracers developed and have unique properties and uses, especially at low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. However, each PET radiopharmaceutical has different properties which can affect image interpretation. Choline and fluciclovine have minimal urinary activity, whereas PSMA agents can have high urinary activity which may affect locoregional disease evaluation. Of the three radiopharmaceuticals, only PSMA is approved for both diagnostic and therapeutic indications with 177 Lu-PSMA. A variety of diagnostic PET radiotracers for prostate cancer allows for increased flexibility, especially in the setting of supply chain and medication shortages. For the time being, keeping a diverse group of PET radiopharmaceuticals for prostate cancer is justifiable.

Abstract Given the prevalence of dementia and the development of pathology-specific disease-modifying therapies, high-value biomarker strategies to inform medical decision-making are critical. In vivo tau-PET is an ideal target as a biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and treatment outcome measure. However, tau-PET is not currently widely accessible to patients compared to other neuroimaging methods. In this study, we present a convolutional neural network (CNN) model that imputes tau-PET images from more widely available cross-modality imaging inputs. Participants (n = 1192) with brain T1-weighted MRI (T1w), fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET, amyloid-PET and tau-PET were included. We found that a CNN model can impute tau-PET images with high accuracy, the highest being for the FDG-based model followed by amyloid-PET and T1w. In testing implications of artificial intelligence-imputed tau-PET, only the FDG-based model showed a significant improvement of performance in classifying tau positivity and diagnostic groups compared to the original input data, suggesting that application of the model could enhance the utility of the metabolic images. The interpretability experiment revealed that the FDG- and T1w-based models utilized the non-local input from physically remote regions of interest to estimate the tau-PET, but this was not the case for the Pittsburgh compound B-based model. This implies that the model can learn the distinct biological relationship between FDG-PET, T1w and tau-PET from the relationship between amyloid-PET and tau-PET. Our study suggests that extending neuroimaging’s use with artificial intelligence to predict protein specific pathologies has great potential to inform emerging care models.