Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30218760›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of urology2019

Histological Validation of 11Carbon-Acetate Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography in Detecting Lymph Node Metastases in Prostate Cancer.

Nieroshan Rajarubendra, Fabio Almeida, Zarko Manojlovic, Chisato Ohe, Nariman Ahmadi, Giovanni Cacciamani, Michael Qiu, Andre Abreu, Jie Cai, Gus Miranda and 7 more

Open access · greenAbstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nieroshan RajarubendraUSC Institute of Urology, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Fabio AlmeidaPhoenix Molecular Imaging, Phoenix, Arizona.
Zarko ManojlovicInstitute of Translational Genomics, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Chisato OheUSC Institute of Urology, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Nariman AhmadiUSC Institute of Urology, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Giovanni CacciamaniUSC Institute of Urology, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Michael QiuUSC Institute of Urology, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Andre AbreuUSC Institute of Urology, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Jie CaiUSC Institute of Urology, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Gus MirandaUSC Institute of Urology, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Mariana C SternUSC Institute of Urology, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
John CarptenInstitute of Translational Genomics, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Peter KuhnDepartment of Aerospace, Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, Viterbi School of Engineering, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Mahul B AminDepartment of Pathology, University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee.
Parkash S GillDepartments of Medicine, Pathology and Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Manju AronDepartment of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Inderbir S GillUSC Institute of Urology, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
University of Southern California · USGTx (United States) · USPhoenix Molecular Imaging · USUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center · US

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI MYLES G COCKBURN · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeConventional imaging cannot definitively detect nodal metastases of prostate cancer. We histologically validated C-acetate positron emission tomography/computerized tomography to identify nodal metastases, examining prostate cancer factors that influence detection rates. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients with C-acetate avid positron emission tomography/computerized tomography imaged pelvic/retroperitoneal lymph nodes underwent high extended robotic lymphadenectomy. A standardized mapping template comprising 8 predetermined anatomical regions was dissected during lymphadenectomy, allowing for matched, region based analysis and comparison of imaging and histological data.

resultsIn 25 patients a total of 2,149 lymph nodes were excised (mean 86 per patient, range 27 to 136) and 528 (22%) harbored metastases (mean 21 positive nodes per patient, range 0 to 109). A total of 174 anatomical regions had matching imaging histological data. C-acetate positron emission tomography/computerized tomography accurately identified 48 node-positive regions and accurately ruled out 88 regions as metastasis-free. C-acetate sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 67%, 84%, 74% and 79%, respectively. An increasing, histologically measured metastatic lesion size in long axis diameter of 5 or less, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, 16 to 20 and 21 mm or greater correlated with improved C-acetate detection rates of 45%, 62%, 81%, 89% and 100%, respectively. Each standard uptake value unit increase correlated with a 1.9 mm increase in nodal long axis diameter (p <0.001) and a 1.2 mm increase in short axis diameter (p <0.001). Positive C-acetate positron emission tomography/computerized tomography findings correlated with histological lymph node size (long axis diameter 12 mm and short axis diameter 6 mm), metastatic lesion size (long axis diameter 11 mm and short axis diameter 6 mm) and extranodal extension (positive 88% vs false-negative 58%, p = 0.005).

conclusionsC-acetate positron emission tomography/computerized tomography can identify prostate cancer metastatic nodal disease. However, it underestimates the true cephalad extent of nodal involvement, performing better in the pelvis than in the retroperitoneum. Standard uptake value, histological nodal size, intranodal metastasis size and extranodal extension correlate with cancer bearing nodes.

Indexed as

AgedCarbon RadioisotopesFalse Negative ReactionsHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedPelvisPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProspective StudiesProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRadiopharmaceuticalsRetroperitoneal SpaceCarbon-11Carbon RadioisotopesRadiopharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID30218760
PMCPMC9504582
OpenAlexW2796223683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.