ArticleEuropean journal of radiology2018
Prospective evaluation of fluciclovine (
Article in European journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01808222 (Transmolecular Imaging of Recurrent Prostate Carcinoma With Exploration of Genomic Markers Differences Between Local and Distant Recurrence), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Transmolecular Imaging of Recurrent Prostate Carcinoma With Exploration of Genomic Markers Differences Between Local and Distant Recurrence
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Performance of PET/CT Using 18F-FACBC in Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Trial
- [The Journal of urology · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Feasibility and Initial Results: Fluciclovine Positron Emission Tomography/Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy of Recurrent Prostate Cancer.The Journal of urology · 2019Trial
- Lesion segmentation onFrontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Review
- A bicentric retrospective analysis of clinical utility ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- The Clinical Utility ofMolecular imaging and biology · 2021Article
- 18F-Fluciclovine Positron Emission Tomography in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Clinical utility ofAmerican journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Understanding and ImprovingProstate cancer · 2020Review
- Review
- Fluciclovine positron emission tomography in the setting of biochemical recurrence following local therapy of prostate cancer.Translational andrology and urology · 2018Review
- Feasibility of Dose Escalating [Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the disease detection rate, diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement of fluciclovine (
methodsTwenty-four patients with biochemical failure after non-prostatectomy definitive therapy, 16/24 of whom had undergone brachytherapy, underwent fluciclovine PET-CT and mpMR with interpretation by expert readers blinded to patient history, PSA and other imaging results. Reference standard was established via a multidisciplinary truth panel utilizing histology and clinical follow-up (22.9 ± 10.5 months) and emphasizing biochemical control. The truth panel was blinded to investigative imaging results. Diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement (kappa) for the prostate and extraprostatic regions were calculated for each of 2 readers for PET-CT (P1 and P2) and 2 different readers for mpMR (M1 and M2).
resultsOn a whole body basis, the detection rate for fluciclovine PET-CT was 94.7% (both readers), while it ranged from 31.6-36.8% for mpMR. Kappa for fluciclovine PET-CT was 0.90 in the prostate and 1.0 in the extraprostatic regions. For mpMR, kappa was 0.25 and 0.74, respectively. In the prostate, 22/24 patients met the reference standard with 13 malignant and 9 benign results. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were 100.0%, 11.1% and 61.9%, respectively for both PET readers. For mpMR readers, values ranged from 15.4-38.5% for sensitivity, 55.6-77.8% for specificity and 50.0-55.6% for PPV. For extraprostatic disease determination, 18/24 patients met the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity and PPV were 87.5%, 90.0% and 87.5%, respectively, for fluciclovine PET-CT, while for mpMR, sensitivity ranged from 50 to 75%, specificity 70-80% and PPV 57-75%.
conclusionThe disease detection rate for fluciclovine PET-CT in non-prostatectomy patients with biochemical failure was 94.7% versus 31.6-36.8% for mpMR. For extraprostatic disease detection, fluciclovine PET-CT had overall better diagnostic performance than mpMR. For the treated prostate, fluciclovine PET-CT had high sensitivity though low specificity for disease detection, while mpMR had higher specificity, though low sensitivity. Interobserver agreement was also higher with fluciclovine PET-CT compared with mpMR.
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.