Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26968955›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2016

Distribution of prostate nodes: a PET/CT-derived anatomic atlas of prostate cancer patients before and after surgical treatment.

Nina-Sophie Hegemann, Vera Wenter, Sonja Spath, Nadia Kusumo, Minglun Li, Peter Bartenstein, Wolfgang P Fendler, Christian Stief, Claus Belka, Ute Ganswindt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Good clinical practice recommendations for the use of PET/CT in oncology.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020
    Article
  5. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nina-Sophie HegemannDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum der Universität, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. Nina-Sophie.Hegemann@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Vera WenterDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum der Universität, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Sonja SpathDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum der Universität, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Nadia KusumoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum der Universität, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Minglun LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum der Universität, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Peter BartensteinDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum der Universität, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Wolfgang P FendlerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum der Universität, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Christian StiefDepartment of Urology, Klinikum der Universität, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Claus BelkaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum der Universität, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Ute GanswindtDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum der Universität, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
LMU Klinikum · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn order to define adequate radiation portals in nodal positive prostate cancer a detailed knowledge of the anatomic lymph-node distribution is mandatory. We therefore systematically analyzed the localization of Choline PET/CT positive lymph nodes and compared it to the RTOG recommendation of pelvic CTV, as well as to previous work, the SPECT sentinel lymph node atlas.

methodsThirty-two patients being mostly high risk patients with a PSA of 12.5 ng/ml (median) received PET/CT before any treatment. Eighty-seven patients received PET/CT for staging due to biochemical failure with a median PSA of 3.12 ng/ml. Each single PET-positive lymph node was manually contoured in a "virtual" patient dataset to achieve a 3-D visualization, resulting in an atlas of the cumulative PET positive lymph node distribution. Further the PET-positive lymph node location in each patient was assessed with regard to the existence of a potential geographic miss (i.e. PET-positive lymph nodes that would not have been treated adequately by the RTOG consensus on CTV definition of pelvic lymph nodes).

resultsSeventy-eight and 209 PET positive lymph nodes were detected in patients with no prior treatment and in postoperative patients, respectively. The most common sites of PET positive lymph nodes in patients with no prior treatment were external iliac (32.1 %), followed by common iliac (23.1 %) and para-aortic (19.2 %). In postoperative patients the most common sites of PET positive lymph nodes were common iliac (24.9 %), followed by external iliac (23.0 %) and para-aortic (20.1 %). In patients with no prior treatment there were 34 (43.6 %) and in postoperative patients there were 77 (36.8 %) of all detected lymph nodes that would not have been treated adequately using the RTOG CTV. We compared the distribution of lymph nodes gained by Choline PET/CT to the preexisting SPECT sentinel lymph node atlas and saw an overall good congruence.

conclusionsCholine PET/CT and SPECT sentinel lymph node atlas are comparable to each other. More than one-third of the PET positive lymph nodes in patients with no prior treatment and in postoperative patients would not have been treated adequately using the RTOG CTV. To reduce geographical miss, image based definition of an individual target volume is necessary.

Indexed as

Positron-Emission TomographyTomography, X-Ray ComputedAgedAged, 80 and overCholineHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPostoperative PeriodPreoperative PeriodProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedCholineAnatomic atlasCholine PET/CTLymph node metastasesProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID26968955
PMCPMC4788881
OpenAlexW2295059387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.