Evidence Hub

Pre-therapeutic PSMA PET Imaging Biomarkers Demonstrate Prognostic Value in Patients Undergoing [177Lu]Lu-PSMA Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Molin K, Li S, Barry N, Ong JSL, Iravani A, Hofman MS, Hassan GM, Ebert MA et al.

Clinical genitourinary cancer, 2026

2,993 participants

Abstract

Introduction: [177Lu]Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand therapy can improve outcomes in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, though response is highly variable in clinical practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic value of pre-therapeutic PSMA PET-derived imaging biomarkers to better inform patient selection for treatment.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to December 2025 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD420251074879). Pre-therapeutic PSMA PET biomarkers of interest were the mean and maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmean and SUVmax), PSMA tumour volume (PSMA-TV), total lesional uptake (PSMA-TLU), and total lesional quotient (PSMA-TLQ). Outcomes were overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival, and 50% reduction in prostate-specific antigen levels (PSA50). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, prioritising multivariable-adjusted effect estimates. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool.

Results: Thirty-seven studies were included, with 33 contributing to quantitative synthesis (n = 2993). For each unit increase in SUVmean, there was a reduced risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.85-0.92; P max showed limited prognostic value. Most studies were retrospective and were classified as having moderate risk of bias.

Conclusion: Baseline PSMA…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,993 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free