ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 7 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of PSMA PET/CT in the initial staging of prostate cancer.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled 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
- Whole-Body MRI vs. PET/CT for the Detection of Bone Metastases in Patients With Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in 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
- 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
- Prospective Comparison of PET Imaging with PSMA-TargetedJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2020Trial
- Primary site- and metastasis-directed therapies in patients with metastatic prostate cancer: A narrative review.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Risk of bone metastases on [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Review
- Biomarker-Driven Approaches to Bone Metastases: From Molecular Mechanisms to Clinical Applications.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Review
- Advances in Current Treatment Paradigms for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Prospective Head-to-Head Comparison ofJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025Article
- Bone metastases from endocrine cancer: advances in diagnosis, treatment, and prevention.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
- Current Clinical Applications of PSMA-PET for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment.Cancers · 2024Review
- Whole-Body SPECT/CT: Protocol Variation and Technical Consideration-A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of
methodsSixty patients with prostate cancer were included in the period May 2016 to June 2017. The participants underwent three scans (index tests) within 30 days: a NaF-PET/CT, a WB-MRI and a PSMA-PET/CT. Experienced specialists assessed the scans. In the absence of a histological reference standard, the final diagnosis was determined as a panel diagnosis. Measures of the diagnostic performances of the index tests were calculated from patient-based dichotomous outcomes (0 or ≥ 1 bone metastasis) and pairwise compared (McNemar test). For each index test, the agreement with the final diagnosis with regard to the number of bone metastases detected (0, 1-5, > 5) and the inter-reader agreement was calculated (kappa coefficients).
resultsFifty-five patients constituted the final study population; 20 patients (36%) were classified as having bone metastatic disease as their final diagnosis. The patient-based diagnostic performances were (sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy) PSMA-PET/CT (100%, 100%, 100%), NaF-PET/CT (95%, 97%, 96%) and WB-MRI (80%, 83%, 82%). The overall accuracy of PSMA-PET/CT was significantly more favourable compared to WB-MRI (p = 0.004), but not to NaF-PET/CT (p = 0.48). PSMA-PET/CT classified the number of bone metastases reliably compared to the final diagnosis (kappa coefficient 0.97) and with an "almost perfect" inter-reader agreement (kappa coefficient 0.93).
conclusionsThe overall accuracy of PSMA-PET/CT was significantly more advantageous compared to WB-MRI, but not to NaF-PET/CT. KEY POINTS: • PSMA-PET/CT assessed the presence of bone metastases correctly in all 55 patients • PSMA-PET/CT was more advantageous compared to WB-MRI • No difference was found between PSMA-PET/CT and NaF-PET/CT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30132104What 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.