Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29922632›Full record

ArticleProstate international2018

18-Fluoride labeled sodium fluoride positron emission tomography with computer tomography: the impact of pretreatment staging in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

Simon Jd Harley, Richard Hoffmann, Dylan Bartholomeusz, Peter Sutherland, Barry Chatterton, Michael Kitchener, Prab Takhar, Chris Tsopelas, Andrew Fuller, Richard Wells and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Simon Jd HarleyDepartment of Urology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Richard HoffmannDepartment of Urology, Lyell McEwin Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Dylan BartholomeuszDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Peter SutherlandDepartment of Urology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Barry ChattertonDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Michael KitchenerDr Jones and Partners, Tennyson Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Prab TakharSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Chris TsopelasDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Andrew FullerDepartment of Urology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Richard WellsDepartment of Urology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Raj Singh-RaiDepartment of Urology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
John BoltDepartment of Urology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Royal Adelaide Hospital · AULyell McEwin Hospital · AUSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background18-Fluoride labeled sodium fluoride (Na-18-F) positron emission tomography with computer tomography (PET/CT) has a better sensitivity and specificity than whole body bone scan (WBBS) in detecting osseous metastatic prostate cancer. We performed a pilot study of 20 men to examine what level of impact Na-18-F PET/CT has on management plans when used for staging newly diagnosed prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwenty men were prospectively enrolled into the study in South Australia. Men were eligible if they had newly diagnosed, untreated, and biopsy-confirmed intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer (D'Amico classification). WBBS and Na-18-F PET/CT scans were performed within 1 week of each other. Following review of the WBBS, treatment type and intent was documented by the treating urologist. The Na-18-F PET/CT scan was then reviewed. The impact of the Na-18-F PET/CT was measured on whether treatment modality or intent was subsequently altered: high impact = treatment intent or modality was changed; medium impact = treatment modality was modified; low impact = no change in treatment.

resultsIn 18 men (90%), the WBBS and Na-18-F PET/CT were negative for osseous metastases. In one man (5%), the WBBS demonstrated widespread osseous metastases which were similarly demonstrated on the Na-18-F PET/CT. One man (5%) had a normal WBBS; however, the Na-18-F PET/CT demonstrated widespread osseous metastases. Subsequently, in 19 men (95%), the results of the two scans were congruent and the addition of the Na-18-F PET/CT scan demonstrated a low impact on management. In one man (5%), the addition of the Na-18-F PET/CT had a high impact as treatment type and intent was altered.

conclusionsOur pilot study is the first of its kind in Australia, and our findings suggest that Na-18-F PET/CT is a safe and feasible modality for staging prostate cancer. However, its true impact on prostate cancer management warrants further investigation.

Indexed as

MetastasesPositron emission tomography with computer tomographyProstate cancerSodium fluorideWhole body bone scan

Identifiers

PMID29922632
PMCPMC6004619
OpenAlexW2777074947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.