Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24104592›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2014

First imaging results of an intraindividual comparison of (11)C-acetate and (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer at early biochemical first or second relapse after prostatectomy or radiotherapy.

Franz Buchegger, Valentina Garibotto, Thomas Zilli, Laurent Allainmat, Sandra Jorcano, Hansjörg Vees, Olivier Rager, Charles Steiner, Habib Zaidi, Yann Seimbille and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Highlights of articles published in annals of nuclear medicine 2016.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Malignant lipogenesis defined byEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2016
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A Review of Imaging Methods for Prostate Cancer Detection.Biomedical engineering and computational biology · 2016
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Franz BucheggerNuclear Medicine Division, University Hospital of Geneva, 1211, Geneva 14, Switzerland, franz.buchegger@chuv.ch.
Valentina Garibotto
Thomas Zilli
Laurent Allainmat
Sandra Jorcano
Hansjörg Vees
Olivier Rager
Charles Steiner
Habib Zaidi
Yann Seimbille
Osman Ratib
Raymond Miralbell
University Hospital of Geneva · CHHospital Quirón Teknon · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose(18)F-Fluorocholine (FCH) and (11)C-acetate (ACE) PET are widely used for detection of recurrent prostate cancer (PC). We present the first results of a comparative, prospective PET/CT study of both tracers evaluated in the same patients presenting with recurrence and low PSA to compare the diagnostic information provided by the two tracers.

methodsThe study group comprised 23 patients studied for a rising PSA level after radical prostatectomy (RP, 7 patients, PSA ≤ 3 ng/ml), curative radiotherapy (RT, 7 patients, PSA ≤ 5 ng/ml) or RP and salvage RT (9 patients, PSA ≤ 5 ng/ml). Both FCH and ACE PET/CT scans were performed in a random sequence a median of 4 days (range 0 to 11 days) apart. FCH PET/CT was started at injection (307 ± 16 MBq) with a 10-min dynamic acquisition of the prostate bed, followed by a whole-body PET scan and late (45 min) imaging of the pelvis. ACE PET/CT was performed as a double whole-body PET scan starting 5 and 22 min after injection (994 ± 72 MBq), and a late view (45 min) of the prostate bed. PET/CT scans were blindly reviewed by two independent pairs of two experienced nuclear medicine physicians, discordant subgroup results being discussed to reach a consensus for positive, negative end equivocal results.

resultsPET results were concordant in 88 out of 92 local, regional and distant findings (Cohen's kappa 0.929). In particular, results were concordant in all patients concerning local status, bone metastases and distant findings. Lymph-node results were concordant in 19 patients and different in 4 patients. On a per-patient basis results were concordant in 22 of 23 patients (14 positive, 5 negative and 3 equivocal). In only one patient was ACE PET/CT positive for nodal metastases while FCH PET/CT was overall negative; interestingly, the ACE-positive and FCH-negative lymph nodes became positive in a second FCH PET/CT scan performed a few months later.

conclusionOverall, ACE and FCH PET/CT showed excellent concordance, on both a per-lesion and a per-patient basis, suggesting that both tracers perform equally for recurrent prostate cancer staging.

Indexed as

AcetatesNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPositron-Emission TomographyTomography, X-Ray ComputedAgedAged, 80 and overCarbon RadioisotopesCholineFluorine RadioisotopesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsAcetatesCarbon RadioisotopesCholineFluorine RadioisotopesfluorocholineProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID24104592
OpenAlexW2140184928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.