ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2016
Comparison of bone scintigraphy and
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 156 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
156 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 366 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET versus [Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in the Primary Staging of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature.European urology oncology · 2021Pooled it
- PSMA PET for primary lymph node staging of intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer: an expedited systematic review.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2020Pooled it
- Comparison of PSMA-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, NaF-PET/CT, MRI, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Skeletal radiology · 2019Pooled it
- [Focus on molecular imaging in prostate cancer].Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologiePooled it
- 68Ga-Prostate-specific membrane antigen (psma) positron emission tomography (pet) in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyPooled it
- The German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) multi-center prospective phase 1/2European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Trial
- Safety, Dosimetry, and Feasibility of [Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025Trial
- Head-to-head comparison ofScientific reports · 2022Trial
- [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Trial
- Impact ofJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2020Trial
- Trial
- [Significance of PSMA imaging in prostate cancer].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2017Trial
- Article
- Diagnostic accuracy ofJapanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Phase I/IIa clinical trial ofAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Detecting Distant Metastases in Prostate Cancer Using Whole-body MR Imaging Together with DWIBS (Diffusion-weighted Imaging with Background Body Signal Suppression).Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Beyond PSMA: The essential complementary role of MRI in staging prostate cancer with Low-PSMA expression phenotypes.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- PSMA PET-directed radiotherapy for prostate cancer: From precision planning to future innovations.View (Beijing, China) · 2026Article
96 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic performance of
methodsOne hundred twenty-six patients who received planar BS and PSMA PET within three months and without change of therapy were extracted from our database. Bone lesions were categorized into benign, metastatic, or equivocal by two experienced observers. A best valuable comparator (BVC) was defined based on BS, PET, additional imaging, and follow-up data. The cohort was further divided into clinical subgroups (primary staging, biochemical recurrence, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [mCRPC]). Additionally, subgroups of patients with less than 30 days delay between the two imaging procedures and with additional single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) were analyzed.
resultsA total of 75 of 126 patients were diagnosed with bone metastases. Sensitivities and specificities regarding overall bone involvement were 98.7-100 % and 88.2-100 % for PET, and 86.7-89.3 % and 60.8-96.1 % (p < 0.001) for BS, with ranges representing results for 'optimistic' or 'pessimistic' classification of equivocal lesions. Out of 1115 examined bone regions, 410 showed metastases. Region-based analysis revealed a sensitivity and specificity of 98.8-99.0 % and 98.9-100 % for PET, and 82.4-86.6 % and 91.6-97.9 % (p < 0.001) for BS, respectively. PSMA PET also performed better in all subgroups, except patient-based analysis in mCRPC.
conclusionGa-PSMA PET outperforms planar BS for the detection of affected bone regions as well as determination of overall bone involvement in PC patients. Our results indicate that BS in patients who have received PSMA PET for staging only rarely offers additional information; however, prospective studies, including a standardized integrated x-ray computed tomography (SPECT/CT) protocol, should be performed in order to confirm the presented results.
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.