Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 13, 2025

PET and MRI Guided Irradiation of a Glioblastoma Rat Model Using a Micro-irradiator
Published on: December 28, 2017
Volumetric Changes and Acute Toxicity With 68Ga Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Versus 18F-Fluciclovine Positron
Vishal R Dhere1, David M Schuster2, Subir Goyal3
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Purpose:
We evaluated changes in radiation therapy target volume and acute toxicity using 68Ga-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) versus 18F-fluciclovine positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography in postprostatectomy patients with biochemical recurrence. We hypothesized that both fluciclovine and PSMA-guided radiation therapy would (1) significantly change pre-PET radiation therapy volumes and (2) show similar toxicity.
Methods And Materials:
We performed an institutional review board-approved, randomized trial comparing fluciclovine (Arm 1) and PSMA (Arm 2)-guided postprostatectomy radiation therapy in patients with detectable prostate-specific antigen after prostatectomy. Treatment volumes were rigidly defined based on PET, and simultaneous integrated boosts to PET uptake in the prostate bed (70.2-76.0 Gy) or pelvis (54.0-56.0 Gy) were allowed. Clinical target volumes (CTVs) included: prostate bed (CTVPB); pelvic lymph nodes (CTVPLV); and volumetric constraints for bladder(-CTV) and rectum. Acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity (per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0) was assessed <90 days from treatment.
Results:
In total, 140 patients were enrolled with 70 randomized to each arm; 11 Arm 1 and 10 Arm 2 patients did not receive radiation on study and were excluded. Fluciclovine and PSMA incorporation increased both CTVPB and CTVPLV (P < .01). More fluciclovine patients received prostate bed boosts (45 of 59 patients vs 26 of 60 patients; P < .01), but there was no difference in proportion receiving pelvic nodal boosts (10 of 15 patients vs 9of 16 patients, fluciclovine vs PSMA; P = .97). Dose constraints were met for most patients. Rates of grade 2 genitourinary (17.0% vs 6.7%, fluciclovine vs PSMA; P = .15) and GI (5.1% vs 1.7%, fluciclovine vs PSMA; P = .47) toxicity were low, with no grade 3+ events. Higher rectal and bladder dose metrics correlated with GI toxicity (P < .05), but use of simultaneous integrated boosts was not associated with acute toxicity.
Conclusions:
Although both PSMA and fluciclovine use modestly increased target volumes, significantly more fluciclovine patients received prostate bed boosts. Planning directives were met for most patients, and acute toxicity was mild in both Arms. Analysis of biochemical control, late toxicity, and patient-reported outcomes are forthcoming.
More Related Videos
10:28Gene Regulation and Targeted Therapy in Gastric Cancer Peritoneal Metastasis: Radiological Findings from Dual Energy CT and PET/CT
Published on: January 22, 2018
10:33Automated Preparation of [68Ga]Ga-3BP-3940 on a Synthesis Module for PET Imaging of the Tumor Microenvironment
Published on: April 25, 2025