{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,10]],"date-time":"2025-10-10T00:53:32Z","timestamp":1760057612084,"version":"build-2065373602"},"reference-count":20,"publisher":"MDPI AG","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,14]],"date-time":"2025-02-14T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1739491200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"funder":[{"name":"Blue Earth Diagnostics Ltd."}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Diagnostics"],"abstract":"<jats:p>Objectives: To explore the impact of different standard of truth (SoT) methodologies on efficacy endpoints traditionally used in clinical trials of diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals, using data from the SPOTLIGHT study (NCT04186845) in patients with recurrent prostate cancer. Methods: Data from patients with baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) \u2264 5 ng\/mL, who underwent 18F-flotufolastat imaging and had data for SoT determination, were reviewed. Majority-read patient level endpoints (verified detection rate [VDR] and patient-level positive predictive value [PPV]), and region-level PPV (in the prostate\/prostate bed, pelvic lymph nodes, and extrapelvic sites) according to on-study reads by three blinded readers, were stratified by the SoT methodology (histopathology; post-PET confirmatory imaging; baseline\/historic conventional imaging) used by the independent Truth Panel to verify 18F-flotufolastat-avid lesions. Differences between SoT groups for each endpoint were compared using a chi-square test (statistically significant if p &lt; 0.0167). Results: Our analysis included 297 patients (median baseline PSA = 0.8 ng\/mL): 56% (n = 166) had post-PET confirmatory imaging, 26% (n = 78) had baseline\/historic conventional imaging, and 18% (n = 53) had histopathological confirmation of \u22651 PET-positive lesion. For all endpoints assessed, the highest majority-read values were achieved with histopathology SoT. For histopathology versus baseline\/historic conventional imaging, VDR (77%) was 3.6-fold higher (p &lt; 0.0001), patient-level PPV (79%) was 2.2-fold higher (p &lt; 0.0001), and region-level PPV (50%) was 3.7-fold higher in the prostate\/prostate bed (p = 0.009); smaller increases were seen in majority-read PPV in the pelvic lymph nodes (77%; 1.5-fold) and other sites (75%; 1.3-fold), but these were not of statistical significance. Conclusions: These data illustrate how SoT methods can substantially impact efficacy endpoints traditionally used in clinical trials of diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals. Notably lower endpoint values are achieved with imaging SoT than with histopathology.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3390\/diagnostics15040473","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,14]],"date-time":"2025-02-14T11:14:41Z","timestamp":1739531681000},"page":"473","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/mdpi_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["How Standard of Truth Methodology Impacts Diagnostic PSMA-Targeting Radiopharmaceutical Evaluation: Learnings from the Phase 3 SPOTLIGHT Study"],"prefix":"10.3390","volume":"15","author":[{"given":"Benjamin H.","family":"Lowentritt","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Chesapeake Urology Research Associates, Towson, MD 21204, USA"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-5141-1710","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Albert","family":"Chau","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Blue Earth Diagnostics Ltd., Oxford OX4 4GA, UK"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Phillip","family":"Davis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Blue Earth Diagnostics, Inc., Needham, MA 02094, USA"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"1968","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,14]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref_1","first-page":"173","article-title":"Diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography\/computed tomography for biochemically recurrent prostate cancer and change-of-management analysis","volume":"15","author":"Chausse","year":"2021","journal-title":"Can. Urol. Assoc. J."},{"key":"ref_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Meijer, D., Jansen, B.H.E., Wondergem, M., Bodar, Y.J.L., Srbljin, S., Vellekoop, A.E., Keizer, B., van der Zant, F.M., Hoekstra, O.S., and Nieuwenhuijzen, J.A. (2020). Clinical verification of 18F-DCFPyL PET-detected lesions in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. PLoS ONE, 15.","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0239414"},{"key":"ref_3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1208","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(20)30314-7","article-title":"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","volume":"395","author":"Hofman","year":"2020","journal-title":"Lancet"},{"key":"ref_4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1860","DOI":"10.1001\/jamaoncol.2022.3531","article-title":"PSMA PET Scan","volume":"8","author":"Kwon","year":"2022","journal-title":"JAMA Oncol. Patient Page"},{"key":"ref_5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1911","DOI":"10.1007\/s00259-019-04385-6","article-title":"Early lesion detection with 18F-DCFPyL PET\/CT in 248 patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer","volume":"46","author":"Wondergem","year":"2019","journal-title":"Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging"},{"key":"ref_6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"856","DOI":"10.1001\/jamaoncol.2019.0096","article-title":"Assessment of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET accuracy in localizing recurrent prostate cancer: A prospective single-arm clinical trial","volume":"5","author":"Fendler","year":"2019","journal-title":"JAMA Oncol."},{"key":"ref_7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"299","DOI":"10.1097\/JU.0000000000003493","article-title":"Diagnostic performance and safety of 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 PET in men with suspected prostate cancer recurrence: Results from a phase 3, prospective, multicenter study (SPOTLIGHT)","volume":"210","author":"Jani","year":"2023","journal-title":"J. Urol."},{"key":"ref_8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"3674","DOI":"10.1158\/1078-0432.CCR-20-4573","article-title":"Diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFPyL-PET\/CT in men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer: Results from the CONDOR phase III, multicenter study","volume":"27","author":"Morris","year":"2021","journal-title":"Clin. Cancer Res."},{"key":"ref_9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2056","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2012.01.083","article-title":"Are repeat prostate biopsies safe? A cohort analysis from the SEARCH database","volume":"187","author":"Kopp","year":"2012","journal-title":"J. Urol."},{"key":"ref_10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1286","DOI":"10.1016\/S1470-2045(19)30415-2","article-title":"18F-fluciclovine PET-CT and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT in patients with early biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: A prospective, single-centre, single-arm, comparative imaging trial","volume":"20","author":"Calais","year":"2019","journal-title":"Lancet Oncol."},{"key":"ref_11","unstructured":"U.S Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (2025, January 06). Clinical Trial Imaging Endpoint Process Standards guidance for Industry, Available online: https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/media\/81172\/download."},{"key":"ref_12","unstructured":"U.S Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (2025, January 06). Highlights of Prescribing Information: POSLUMA (flotufolastat F 18) Injection, Available online: https:\/\/www.accessdata.fda.gov\/drugsatfda_docs\/label\/2023\/216023s000lbl.pdf."},{"key":"ref_13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"398","DOI":"10.1038\/s41391-020-0258-7","article-title":"Management of prostate cancer patients during COVID-19 pandemic","volume":"23","author":"Obek","year":"2020","journal-title":"Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis."},{"key":"ref_14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"7311","DOI":"10.1245\/s10434-021-10406-2","article-title":"Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer clinical trials","volume":"28","author":"Boughey","year":"2021","journal-title":"Ann. Surg. Oncol."},{"key":"ref_15","first-page":"1","article-title":"COVID-19 pandemic impact on screening and diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review","volume":"14","author":"Zadeh","year":"2023","journal-title":"BMJ Support. Palliat. Care"},{"key":"ref_16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"4235","DOI":"10.1200\/JCO.2012.45.4801","article-title":"Psychological impact of prostate biopsy: Physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression","volume":"31","author":"Wade","year":"2013","journal-title":"J. Clin. Oncol."},{"key":"ref_17","unstructured":"European Medicines Agency Heads of Medicines Agency (2025, January 06). Guidance on the Management of Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Version 5, 10 February 2022), Available online: https:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/health\/sites\/health\/files\/files\/eudralex\/vol-10\/guidanceclinicaltrials_covid19_en.pdf."},{"key":"ref_18","unstructured":"U.S Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (2025, January 06). Conduct of Clinical Trials of Medical Products During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency: Guidance for Industry, Investigators, and Institutional Review Boards. March 2020, Updated on August 30, 2021, Available online: https:\/\/public4.pagefreezer.com\/content\/FDA\/02-11-2021T10:11\/https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/media\/136238\/download."},{"key":"ref_19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"145","DOI":"10.1016\/j.cpet.2016.11.005","article-title":"Imaging of prostate cancer using fluciclovine","volume":"12","author":"Zanoni","year":"2017","journal-title":"PET Clin."},{"key":"ref_20","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1773","DOI":"10.1007\/s00259-016-3383-8","article-title":"Recurrent prostate cancer detection with anti-3-[18F]FACBC PET\/CT: Comparison with CT","volume":"43","author":"Odewole","year":"2016","journal-title":"Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging"}],"container-title":["Diagnostics"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2075-4418\/15\/4\/473\/pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,9]],"date-time":"2025-10-09T16:34:54Z","timestamp":1760027694000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2075-4418\/15\/4\/473"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,14]]},"references-count":20,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,2]]}},"alternative-id":["diagnostics15040473"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/diagnostics15040473","relation":{},"ISSN":["2075-4418"],"issn-type":[{"type":"electronic","value":"2075-4418"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,14]]}}}