HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Ga-PSMA PET/CT

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 7/7/2015 3:24 PM (GMT 0)
My husband was due to participate in the clinical study at Stanford yesterday. He was given the IV to start.
I was to leave for the 1 1/2 hours it takes and just then I got a call from the clinical research person letting me know that his PSA was too low to be inc. in this study.

I had informed the research director that my husband had started back on Degarelix in May as to climbing PSA.
She said it would be fine to stay on it and still do this trial not mentioning his PSA that needed to be above 2.

My point is: back in 2011 my husband was also in a study of the value combined F-18 and F- 18 FDG at Stanford looking for cancerous lesions stating this new scan demonstrated better lesion detection than with Tc-99m MDP bone scanning. It was discovered back in 2011 that he did have a MET. on his T-11 spine.

Yesterday we were told that this prior scan (F-18) is used for other types of cancer ET. EL. breast cancers etc. and that this new scan Ga-PSMA is used specifically for prostate cancer so we were very interested.
Now we are wondering if these newer scans can REALLY detect micro- mets RE: prostate cancer tumors if your PSA has to be above 2!

BOOGEE
Posted 7/7/2015 11:24 PM (GMT 0)
No scan can detect micromets - by definition, they are microscopic. The PSMA scans can potentially detect smaller mets than NaF or C-11 scans. It is not yet known what PSA level is the minimum or what size is the minimum - that's why they are doing clinical trials - to find out how sensitive it is. The early data from Germany looks great even at low PSAs. An extra benefit is that they are "theranostic," which means that the PSMA antibody has some cancer fighting capability on its own.

So they are letting him into the trial even with the previously diagnosed T-11 met? That's great!

- Allen
Posted 7/8/2015 1:22 AM (GMT 0)
No they aren't letting him into the trial because of his low PSA. They are well aware of his DX met by Stanford in 2012, so to answer your question they would have let him into the trial if his PSA was at least 2.

BOOGEE
Posted 7/8/2015 4:43 PM (GMT 0)
In that case, he may be able to get into the NIH trial that Sonny3 and wampuscats went for. In "Arm 3" of their study, they are accepting patients with metastatic disease with no limitations on PSA. It utilizes a different anti-PSMA antibody (18F-DCBFC) from the Stanford study, and they also give a NaF PET. In an earlier study, it was sensitive to PSA as low as 0.17.They pay all travel and lodging expenses. Here's the info with contact details:

18F-DCFBC PET/CT in Prostate Cancer
Posted 7/8/2015 8:38 PM (GMT 0)
Allen,

Is this a newer study of the one husband had in 2012 at Stanford?
Thanks for that info and unfortunately Maryland is the location and husband has no vacation for this study.

If you hear of any other studies (locally) besides the 3 you have sent me please feel free to send info.

Thanks,

BOOGEE
Posted 9/21/2018 3:09 AM (GMT 0)
I find it irritating that it seems that the US is always the last country to approve anything that shows to be helpful. TheTC-PSMA-prostate-cancer-scan is already being used extensively in Australia and in South Africa, and it is proving to be a better way to find and/or rule out cancer than most of the scans we have. Why must the FDA always have to be behind everyone else in approving treatments and screenings. It's such a shame.
Posted 9/23/2018 3:28 PM (GMT 0)
We have been waiting for almost a month for this scan to be authorized by our insurance.
I am hoping it to be paid for by our insurance, as I have scheduled an appt. for this scan at UCSF.

Will keep you posted.

BOOGEE
Posted 10/3/2018 7:46 PM (GMT 0)
To update the PSMA GA 68 scan we had applied for:

It was denied by our insurance and reason that was given: Clinical studies have not proven that this service is effective for treatment of members condition.

I have contacted Raven Smith at UCSF for another clinical trial that my husband may be included in for this same scan PSMA Ga 68.

We have his Mo. Oncol. appt. Thurs. and perhaps she may recommend the Aximum scan.

Allen sent a list of scans in order of effectivness and I believe Aximum was at 3rd or 4th.
I suppose one of these are better than traditional scans.

BOOGEE
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply