Original Papers - Oncology Open access

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

Authors

Published
3 March 2026
Section
Original Papers - Oncology
DOI
10.4081/aiua.2026.14797

Abstract

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.

Keywords

References

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 30. Regione Siciliana, Assessorato della Salute: Catalogo Regionale del 30/12/2024; Gazzetta Ufficiale no. 302.
  31. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 42. Fandella A. Analysis of costs of transrectal prostate biopsy. Urologia. 2011;78:288-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5301/RU.2011.8875

Metrics

Citations and online attention from Dimensions, Altmetric and PlumX.

PlumX Metrics

License

Copyright (c) 2026 the Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.