Select Page

Phillip J. Koo, MD

Phillip J. Koo, MD

Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center

Phoenix, Arizona

Phillip J. Koo, MD, is the Chief of Diagnostic Imaging at the Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona. Prior to this, he was Chief of Nuclear Medicine and Associate Professor of Radiology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, Colorado. Dr. Koo completed his transitional internship at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center-Presbyterian and his radiology residency at Pennsylvania Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Health System in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He completed his fellowship at the Harvard Medical School Joint Program in Nuclear Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Koo is a diplomate of both the American Board of Radiology (ABR) and American Board of Nuclear Medicine(ABNM). His academic interests have focused on PET imaging in prostate cancer, response to novel therapies using PET, and data-driven motion correction. He has lectured nationally and internationally on topics related to imaging and radiopharmaceutical based therapies in prostate cancer. In 2022, Dr. Koo was the recipient of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) Presidential Distinguished Service Award.

Disclosures:

Dr. Koo has the following disclosures:
Speaker: Bayer
Consultant: Janssen

Talks by Phillip J. Koo, MD

PSMA PET Imaging

Phillip J. Koo, MD, Division Chief of Diagnostic Imaging and Northwest Region Oncology Physician Executive of Oncology at the Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona, presents a primer for urologists and oncologists on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. Dr. Koo asserts that PSMA-PET is rapidly becoming a modern-day practice. He explains that not all hotspots shown on these scans are necessarily prostate cancer; sharing research demonstrating PSMA-PET images, including normal images and other findings, that are not prostate cancer. If a practitioner is uncertain, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be performed. Dr. Koo highlights solitary rib lesions, which can present a challenge to clinicians due to a high proportion of false positives on the PSMA-PET scan. He then emphasizes that what is seen on the scan is only half the story, explaining that how technicians window, fuse, and send images can affect what a practitioner sees. Dr. Koo recommends that practitioners avoid sole reliance on the fused images. Practitioners should reach out to radiologists in order to gain clinical context and the opportunity to educate and learn from those experts. He then addresses variability in standard uptake value (SUV) and cites a study on the repeatability of SUV in oncologic 18F-FDG PET, concluding that practitioners should be very careful with SUV numbers and take them in context. Dr. Koo shares a scoring system for various PSMA-PET findings and calls this a clear, standardized way for practitioners to communicate with referring physicians. Finally, Dr. Koo addresses RADAR VI and VII as well as procedure guidelines for PSMA-PET.

Read More

PET Tumor Board: Case #6

In this discussion, E. David Crawford, MD, Jack A. Vickers Director of Prostate Research and Professor of Urology at the University of California, San Diego, leads a discussion of the case study of a 63 year old patient with a strong family history of prostate cancer. He presents this case study to a panel of experts comprised of:

Wayne G. Brisbane, MD – Assistant Professor of Urology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Phillip J. Koo, MD – Division Chief of Diagnostic Imaging and Northwest Region Oncology Physician Executive at the Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center.
Daniel P. Petrylak, MD – Director of Genitourinary Oncology, Professor of Medicine and Urology, Co-Leader of Cancer Signaling Networks, and Co-Director of the Signal Transduction Program at Yale University Cancer Center.

Dr. Crawford informs the panel that the patient, a physician with a history of low-grade prostate cancer, initially presented with a PSA of 4.9 ng/ml, his germline test was negative, and his MRI revealed a 40g prostate with a PI-RADS 3 lesion at the left base. After a negative SelectMDx scan and low-risk OncotypeDX score, along with a course of finasteride which lowered his PSA to 1.43 ng/ml, Dr. Crawford asks the panel to weigh in on further steps.

Dr. Brisbane suggests exploring reclassifying the patient’s risk score, given his family history, in order to qualify them for a PSMA. Dr. Petrylak supports the suggestion, mentioning that it has been common practice to reimage patients after finasteride use.

Dr. Crawford shows the results from the patient’s POSLUMA scan which showed uptake in multiple foci. Dr. Koo digs into the results, noting that there are alternate explanations for the results showing multiple uptakes. Given the patient’s risk profile, the panel suggests a confirmatory biopsy of the prostate in the highest activity areas.

Dr. Crawford reveals that the patient’s confirmatory biopsies showed the presence of Gleason 6 (3+3) prostate cancer in the uptake areas. Given the discordance between the biopsies and the scans, the panel discusses possible next steps, including sending the biopsy samples for Decipher testing, treating the patient with targeted focal therapy, and options for whole-gland therapy. The panel also discusses the dangers of over-reliance on scan results in treatment selection and cautions against over-treatment.

This is the sixth in a series of discussions on PSMA PET supported by Blue Earth Diagnostics. For the first installment, click here. For the second installment, click here. For the third installment, click here. For the fourth installment, click here. For the fifth installment, click here.

Read More

PET Tumor Board: Case #5

In this discussion, E. David Crawford, MD, Jack A. Vickers Director of Prostate Research and Professor of Urology at the University of California, San Diego, leads a discussion of the case study of a healthy 69-year-old male with a history of multiple BPH treatments presenting with Gleason Grade 2 prostate cancer. He presents this case study to a panel of experts comprised of:

Wayne G. Brisbane, MD – Assistant Professor of Urology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Phillip J. Koo, MD – Division Chief of Diagnostic Imaging and Northwest Region Oncology Physician Executive at the Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center.
Daniel P. Petrylak, MD – Director of Genitourinary Oncology, Professor of Medicine and Urology, Co-Leader of Cancer Signaling Networks, and Co-Director of the Signal Transduction Program at Yale University Cancer Center.

After reviewing the patient’s treatment history, Dr. Crawford informs the panel that the patient initially presented with a PSA of 4.55 ng/ml, his 12 core biopsies were negative after 6 months of treatment, and he was placed on active surveillance post-biopsies. However, the patient returned one year after initial presentation with a PSA of 8.5 ng/ml. Dr. Crawford asks the panel to weigh in on next steps.

Dr. Petrylak recommends pursuing active surveillance based on the patient’s 2.1% Decipher score and the patient’s preference of preserving his quality of life. Dr. Koo suggests using an mpMRI to resolve the discordance between the PSA level and the negative biopsies.

Dr. Crawford shows the results from the patient’s POSLUMA scan which showed focal uptake in the right base of the prostate. Dr. Koo acknowledges that the scan results are promising, but he reminds the panel to be cautious about the sensitivity of PSMA PET before definitive therapy.

Dr. Crawford reveals that the patient had an mpMRI and 12 core biopsies in addition to the POSLUMA scan, all of which confirmed the presence of prostate cancer in the right base. The panel recommends focal therapy as a next step, and discusses the available options for focal therapy.
This is the fifth in a series of discussions on PSMA PET supported by Blue Earth Diagnostics. For the first installment, click here. For the second installment, click here. For the third installment, click here. For the fourth installment, click here.

Read More

Role of Molecular Targeted Imaging in Oligometastatic Disease

Phillip J. Koo, MD, explores the current state and evolution of the role of molecular targeted imaging in oligometastatic prostate cancer. He begins by examining oligometastatic disease as a diagnosis, and highlights the importance of shared decision-making in approaching treatment and management.

Dr. Koo then reviews recent trials examining the impact of various treatments on oligometastatic disease, including the EMBARK, STOMP, and ORIOLE trials. He discusses weaknesses in these trials, with particular emphasis on the lack of risk stratification in each trial, and the lack of PSMA-PET in the EMBARK and STOMP trials.

On the topic of progression, Dr. Koo highlights current weaknesses in detecting microscopic disease, which allows micrometastatic disease to progress until it is oligometastatic disease. He discusses the weaknesses of BCR, and the low sensitivity of initial diagnostic imaging.

Dr. Koo concludes by outlining future directions for research. He emphasizes the importance of keeping patient goals top-of-mind when exploring treatments.

Read More

Molecular Targeted Imaging

Phillip J. Koo, MD, gives a high-level overview of the current state of molecular targeted imaging in identifying prostate cancer. Dr. Koo begins by establishing the sensitivity and accuracy of PSMA PET molecular targeted imaging at various PSA levels. He compares the efficacy of the four most commonly used commercially available agents in PSMA PET, noting that there is no data available that indicates one agent is superior to another.

Dr. Koo then delves into the sensitivity of different PSMA PET agents, including Gallium-68-PSMA-11 and Fluorine-18-DCFPyl. He highlights that imaging is not yet a reliable replacement for prostatectomy, using a few case studies as supporting evidence.

Dr. Koo concludes by reviewing the issue of biochemical recurrence and how it impacts disease management. He notes that molecular targeted imaging can detect recurrences in different sites in the body, and how current data may support a more aggressive treatment approach in the future.

Read More

Join the GRU Community

- Why Join? -