Selection of appropriate patients for prostate cancer focal therapy depends on accurate detection of exclusionary features such as extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), multifocality, and contralateral clinically significant disease. The incremental value of molecular imaging with PSMA PET/CT over anatomic multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for this purpose was previously undefined. Unlike lesion-detection studies, this work directly compared PSMA PET/CT, mpMRI, and their combination against whole-mount histopathology (WMHP) from radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens to determine whether imaging correctly classifies focal therapy eligibility.
This was a retrospective single-institution study of patients at UCLA between 2017 and 2024 who underwent radical prostatectomy and had preoperative PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI. Eligible patients had biopsy grade group (GG) ≤3, unilateral disease on initial assessment, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <20 ng/mL. The final analytic cohort comprised 112 patients meeting these criteria.
For each modality, two blinded readers independently evaluated key exclusionary imaging features: EPE, SVI, bilateral disease, and multifocality. A third reader adjudicated discordant reads. Imaging-based eligibility for focal therapy required absence of all four exclusionary features on the assessed modality or combination of modalities.
WMHP from radical prostatectomy served as the reference standard. Ineligibility on WMHP was defined as presence of EPE, SVI, multifocal disease, bilateral disease with a contralateral or secondary focus grade group ≥2, or any focus with grade group >3 found at prostatectomy.
Imaging-based eligibility required that none of the four exclusionary features be present as read on the imaging modality or combination. The WMHP-defined ineligibility criteria described above determined the ground truth against which imaging performance was measured.
On WMHP, 77 of 112 patients (69%) were considered ineligible for focal therapy; 19 patients (17%) had a GG>3 focus at radical prostatectomy. Performance characteristics were as follows:
At the observed prevalence of ineligibility, the authors report that combined imaging would correctly identify approximately 9 additional ineligible patients per 100, but would also falsely exclude approximately 7 true focal therapy candidates per 100.
Modality-specific performance varied by feature:
For detection of EPE, mpMRI was more sensitive than PET (77% vs 32%, P<0.001), while PET was more specific than mpMRI for EPE (90% vs 58%, P<0.001).
Combined imaging improved detection of multifocal disease compared with mpMRI alone (44% vs 23%, P=0.001).
Combined imaging also improved detection of bilateral disease compared with mpMRI alone (45% vs 23%, P=0.002).
These findings suggest complementary strengths: mpMRI contributes higher sensitivity to anatomic extraprostatic extension, while PSMA PET/CT contributes higher specificity and improves recognition of multifocal and bilateral disease when added to mpMRI.
Adding PSMA PET/CT to mpMRI significantly increases sensitivity for imaging features that would exclude patients from focal therapy, reflecting complementary molecular and anatomic information. However, even with combined imaging, a substantial proportion of adverse pathology on WMHP was missed. The authors conclude that imaging—alone or combined—should not be the sole determinant of focal therapy eligibility.
Clinicians should recognize the trade-off observed here: combining modalities enhances detection of exclusionary features (reducing false negatives) but at the cost of lower specificity (increasing false positives), which may lead to unnecessary exclusion of suitable candidates. Shared decision-making and incorporation of other clinical data, biopsy findings, and multidisciplinary review remain essential.
This analysis is retrospective and single-center. The authors report that the datasets are not publicly available due to institutional privacy restrictions but can be requested from the corresponding author. Ethical approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board of the University of California, Los Angeles (10-1863), with waiver of written informed consent due to the retrospective design. The authors declared no competing interests.
Further prospective validation would be needed to define how best to integrate PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI into focal therapy selection pathways and to quantify clinical outcomes of imaging-driven decisions.