ArticleClinical nuclear medicine2014
Prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen velocity as threshold indicators in 11C-acetate PET/CTAC scanning for prostate cancer recurrence.
Article in Clinical nuclear medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploitation of CD133 for the Targeted Imaging of Lethal Prostate Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2020Article
- Performance characteristics and relationship of PSA value/kinetics on carbon-11 acetate PET/CT imaging in biochemical relapse of prostate cancer.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Article
- PET imaging of recurrent and metastatic prostate cancer with novel tracers.Future oncology (London, England) · 2016Review
- Prostate Cancer Imaging with Novel PET Tracers.Current urology reports · 2016Review
- Contemporary Management of Prostate Cancer.F1000Research · 2016Review
- [Positron-emission tomography in urooncology].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to identify which patient characteristics are associated with the highest likelihood of positive findings on 11C-acetate PET/computed tomography attenuation correction (CTAC) (PET/CTAC) scan when imaging for recurrent prostate cancer.
methodsFrom 2007 to 2011, 250 11C-acetate PET/CTAC scans were performed at a single institution on patients with prostate cancer recurrence after surgery, brachytherapy, or external beam radiation. Of these patients, 120 met our inclusion criteria. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between predictability of positive findings and patients' characteristics, such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at the time of scan, PSA kinetics, Gleason score, staging, and type of treatment before scan.
resultsIn total, 68.3% of the 120 11C-acetate PET/CTAC scans were positive. The percentage of positive scans and PSA at the time of scanning and PSA velocity (PSAV) had positive correlations. The putative sensitivity and specificity were 86.6% and 65.8%, respectively, when a PSA level greater than 1.24 ng/mL was used as the threshold for scanning. The putative sensitivity and specificity were 74% and 75%, respectively, when a PSAV level greater than 1.32 ng/mL/y was used as the threshold. No significant associations were found between scan positivity and age, PSA doubling time, Gleason score, staging, or type of treatment before scanning.
conclusionsThis retrospective study suggests that threshold models of PSA greater than 1.24 ng/mL or PSAV greater than 1.32 ng/mL per year are independent predictors of positive findings in 11C-acetate PET/CTAC imaging of recurrent prostate cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.