PSMA PET/CT in diagnosing and staging high grade prostate cancer: accuracy and cost-effectiveness

Introduction: To evaluate accuracy and costeffectiveness of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) as single procedure in diagnosing and staging high grade prostate cancer (PCa).
Materials and Methods: From June 2022 to December 2025, 330 men (median age: 65 years) underwent transperineal prostate biopsy for the suspicion of high grade PCa (PSA >20 ng/ml and/or suspicious digital rectal examination). All the patients underwent PSMA PET/CT targeted biopsy of intraprostatic lesions suspicious for PCa (Standard Uptake Value >8) combined with extended prostate biopsy.
Results: Median PSA was 30.5 ng/ml (range: 20-785 ng/ml) and 135/330 (41%) men had positive DRE; a csPCa was found in 325/330 (98.5%) patients and 297/325 (91.4%) had a Gleason score >8/ISUP Grade Group >4. Clinical staging by PSMA PET/CT demonstrated: 130 (40%) cT2PCa vs 195 (60%) cT3PCa cases; in detail, 95/325 (29.2%) had positive nodes, 60 (18.5%) bone metastases and 40 (12.3%) multiple metastases. The overall reimbursement for diagnosing PCa in the 330 patients submitted to prostate biopsy was 471,883,5 €.; using PSMA PET/CT without MRI the cost of this latter procedure could be spared for a total of 71,016 €.
Conclusions: PSMA PET/CT as a single imaging procedure demonstrated an high accuracy in diagnosing and staging high grade PCa, moreover, improved cost-effectiveness and allowed to start quickly therapy.

1. Roobol MJ, de Vos II, Månsson M, et al. European study of prostate cancer screening-23-year follow-up. N Engl J Med 2025 30; 393:1669-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2503223

2. Pepe P, Aragona F. Incidence of insignificant prostate cancer using free/total PSA: results of a case-finding protocol on 14,453 patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2010; 13:316-319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2010.29

3. Pepe P, Fraggetta F, Galia A, et al. PCA3 score and prostate cancer diagnosis at repeated saturation biopsy. Which cut-off: 20 or 35? Int Braz J Urol 2012; 38:489-495. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-55382012000400008

4. Pepe P, Aragona F. PCA3 score vs PSA free/total accuracy in prostate cancer diagnosis at repeat saturation biopsy. Anticancer Res 2011; 31:4445-4449.

5. Pepe P, Aragona F. Prostate cancer detection rate at repeat saturation biopsy: PCPT risk calculator versus PCA3 score versus case finding protocol. Can J Urol 2013; 20:6620-6624.

6. Salemi M, Pettinato A, Fraggetta F, et al Expression of miR-132 and miR-212 in prostate cancer and metastatic lymph node: Case report and revision of the literature. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2020;92:209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.3.209

7. Pepe P, Cimino S, Garufi A, et al. Confirmatory biopsy of men under active surveillance: extended versus saturation versus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Scand J Urol 2017; 51:260-263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2017.1313310

8. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 2014; 384:2027-2035. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0

9. Checcucci E, Bauckneht M, Cisero E, et al. PSMA PET-targeted biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis: initial experience from a multicenter cohort. Urology 2025;196: 178-185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2024.10.026

10. Bodar YJL, Boevé LMS, van Leeuwen PJ, et al. Using prostatespecific membrane antigen positron-emission tomography to guide prostate biopsies and stage men at high-risk of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2023; 132:705-712.

11. Emmett L, Papa N, Buteau J, et al. The PRIMARY score: using intraprostatic 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT patterns to optimize prostate cancer diagnosis. J Nucl Med 2022; 63:1644-1650.

12. Heetman JG, Paulino Pereira LJ, et al. The additional value of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT SUVmax in predicting ISUP GG ≥ 2 and ISUP GG ≥ 3 prostate cancer in biopsy. Prostate 2024; 84:1025-1032. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24716

13. Exterkate L, Hermsen R, Küsters-Vandevelde HVN, et al. Head-to-head comparison of 18F-PSMA-1007 positron emission tomography/computed tomography and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with whole-mount histopathology as reference in localisation and staging of primary prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2023; 6:574-581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.04.006

14. Pepe P, Pepe L, Cignoli D, Roscigno M. PSMA PET/CT in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: why and when? Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2025; 97:13746. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2025.13746

15. Pepe P, Pepe L, Fiorentino V, et al. PSMA PET/CT accuracy in diagnosing prostate cancer nodes metastases. In Vivo 2024;38:2880-2885. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.13769

16. Emmett L, Papa N, Counter W, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of the PRIMARY score on PSMA PET and of PI-RADS on multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis within a real-world database. J Nucl Med 2024; 65:94-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.123.266164

17. Pepe P, Pepe L, Tamburo M, et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and prostate cancer diagnosis: which SUVmax value? In Vivo 2023;37:1318-1322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.13211

18. Gillessen S, Turco F, Davis ID, et al. Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Report from the 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC). Eur Urol 2025; 87:157-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.09.017

19. Pepe P, Pennisi M. Should 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT replace CT and bone scan in clinical staging of high-risk prostate cancer? Anticancer Res 2022; 42:1495-1498. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15621

20. Mohan P, Wadhwa P, Mahajan H, et al. Detection accuracy of [68 Ga] PSMA PET/CT with rising PSA in prostate cancer. World J Nucl Med 2025; 24:144-154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0045-1804894

21. Pepe P, Roscigno M, Pepe L, et al. Could 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT evaluation reduce the number of scheduled prostate biopsies in men enrolled in active surveillance protocols? J Clin Med 2022; 11:3473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123473

22. Pepe P, Pepe L, Tamburo M, et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT evaluation in men enrolled in prostate cancer Active Surveillance. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2023;95:11322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2023.11322

23. Pepe P, Pepe L, Pennisi M. Negative biopsy histology in men with PI-RADS score 5: is it useful PSMA PET/CT evaluation? Arch Ital Urol Androl 2024;96:12358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12358

24. Aragona F, Pepe P, Motta M, et al. Incidence of prostate cancer in Sicily: results of a multicenter case-findings protocol. Eur Urol 2005;47:569-574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2004.11.007

25. Pepe P, Panella P, Savoca F, et al. Prevalence and clinical significance of prostate cancer among 12,682 men with normal digital rectal examination, low PSA levels ( DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000100833

26. Pepe P, Pepe L, Cosentino S, et al. Detection rate of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT vs. mpMRI targeted biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 2022; 42:3011-3015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15785

27. Pepe P, Pennisi M. Morbidity following transperineal prostate biopsy: Our experience in 8.500 men. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2022;94:155-159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.2.155

28. Pepe P, Pennisi M. Targeted biopsy in men high risk for prostate cancer: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT versus mpMRI. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2023; 21:639-642. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2023.06.007

29. Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M: Transperineal vs. transrectal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy: detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017; 15:e33-e36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2016.07.007

30. Regione Siciliana, Assessorato della Salute: Catalogo Regionale del 30/12/2024; Gazzetta Ufficiale no. 302.

31. Pepe P, Fraggetta F, Galia A, et al. Is quantitative histologic examination useful to predict nonorgan-confined prostate cancer when saturation biopsy is performed? Urology. 2008; 72:1198-202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.05.045

32. Fiorentino V, Pepe L, Pizzimenti C, et al. PD-L1 expression in prostate cancer and Gleason Grade Group: Is there any relationship? Findings from a multi-institutional cohort. Pathol Res Pract. 2025;269:155916. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2025.155916

33. Cornford P, Tilki D, van den Bergh RCN, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. 2025. Arnhem, European Association of Urology.

34. Demirci E, Kabasakal L, Sahin OE, et al. Can SUVmax values of Ga-68-PSMA PET/CT scan predict the clinically significant prostate cancer? Nucl Med Commun 2019; 40:86-91.

35. Bodar YJL, Boevé LMS, van Leeuwen PJ, et al. Using prostatespecific membrane antigen positron-emission tomography to guide prostate biopsies and stage men at high-risk of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2023; 132:705-712. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16167

36. Pepe P, Pepe L, Curduman M, et al. Ductal prostate cancer staging: Role of PSMA PET/CT. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2024; 96:12132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12132

37. Hofman MS, Lawrentschuk N, Francis RJ, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet 2020;395:1208-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7

38. Pepe P, Pepe G, Pepe L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of multiparametric MRI in 800 men submitted to repeat prostate biopsy: results of a public health model. Anticancer Res 2018; 38:2395-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.12489

39. Mazzone E, Cannoletta D, Quarta L, et al. A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography for prostate cancer diagnosis and primary staging before definitive treatment. Eur Urol 2025; 87:654-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2025.03.003

40. Miller SR, Chung DH, Gonzalez RT, et al. Impact of PSMA PET staging on initial treatment in newly diagnosed prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2025; 66:1891-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.124.268555

41. Fandella A, Scattoni V, Galosi A, et al. Italian Prostate Biopsies Group: 2016 updated guidelines insights. Anticancer Res. 2017;37:413-424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11333

42. Fandella A. Analysis of costs of transrectal prostate biopsy. Urologia. 2011;78:288-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5301/RU.2011.8875