Does anyone have a clue for treatment of low-PSA metastatic PCa? For neuroendocrine PCa?
The only study I can find on treatment for low-PSA: "Mortality Risk for Docetaxel-Treated, High-Grade Prostate Cancer With Low PSA Levels: A Meta-Analysis | Oncology | JAMA Network Open"
| indicates that adding docetaxel to SOC for low-PSA patients had very good results, however this was for non-metastatic advanced localized disease.
From European Urology Volume 74, Issue 2, August 2018, Clinical and Genomic Characterization of Low–Prostate-specific Antigen, High-grade Prostate Cancer
"For Gleason 8–10 tumors, PSA ≤2.5 ng/ml was associated with higher expression of neuroendocrine/small-cell markers compared to >2.5 ng/ml (p = 0.046), with no such relationship for Gleason ≤7 disease".
Written by
Purple-Bike
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Finally, Himisha Beltran and Martin Bakht found that some neuroendocrine PCa has PSMA expression. So if a PSMA PET/CT shows PSMA positive lesions you could try Lutetium 177 therapy. (Experimental) urotoday.com/video-lectures... and pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/315...
CT and Bone Scan show two focal uptakes, with more precision from DCF-Pyl-PET and NaF-PET scans that are to be made within three days when I will also get a set of tests to indicate whether my low-PSA score is likely to be associated with neuroendocrine disease.
May I change focus…..? MO did not order an FDG-PET scan, but the passages below make me think this could be a mistake. Should I insist?
Posted by V10fanatic: “My recent PSMA-PET came back clear with a PSA of 4, so my MO suggested I run an FDG. It found 4 mets; my spine(2), rib, and pelvis. He said that maybe 10% of metastatic men fall into the discordant realm”.
From A Comparison of 18F-DCFPyL, 18F-NaF, and 18F-FDG PET/CT in a Prospective Cohort of Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer J Nucl Med 2022; 63:735–741 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.262371
“In about 10% of men, some lesions were positive on-FDG and negative on DCFPyL, despite an overall higher lesion number seen on DCFPyL, implying that a limited number of metastases may exhibit aggressive metabolic features with low PSMA (FDG+, PSMA–) earlier in the course of disease (22). Indeed, similar to the study by Wang et al. (23), we noted discordance between the 2 scans with 22 of 322 lesions detected by-FDG alone in 8 of 30 patients (27%), of which 3 were CRPC and 5 were CSPC. These lesions may be clinically relevant, as decreased survival and therapeutic response have been noted in men with abnormal FDG PET findings (21, 22,24,25)”.
LU-177 J591 is one of the options I am considering.
But even if I will not use that therapy, surely an FDG PET scan will be crucial, if lesions unique to FDG-PET are discovered, given that I will use SBRT for local control?
It is only 10% of men who have lesions only shown on FDG-PET, but I could be one of those 10 % and it also seems that those kinds of lesions are of higher potential lethality.
Unfortunately, there was no comparison between FDG-PET and NaF-PET, which might have been more interesting given that neither need PSMA-expressing cancer cells for detection. Perhaps the 10 % figure would be much smaller in such a comparison, so that it is not worth worrying about, given that I will have both NaF-PET and DCF-Pyl..... Also the CT scan, FWIW, detects non-PSMA avid cells.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
PSA is increasing with Docetaxel, what should we do now ? 
Docetaxel vs Surveillance After Radical Radiotherapy for Intermediate- or High-Risk Prostate Cancer 
