ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2019
Comparison of Ga-68 PSMA positron emission tomography/computerized tomography with Tc-99m MDP bone scan in prostate cancer patients
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET versus [Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled 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
- Diagnostic accuracy ofJapanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- PSMA PET/CT improves precision diagnosis, treatment, and clinical decision-making in prostate cancer.American journal of translational research · 2026Review
- Review
- Radiotheranostics in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Challenges, Practice, and Prospects.World journal of nuclear medicine · 2025Review
- Systematic review & meta-analysis of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and bone scan in the diagnosis of prostate lesions.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Article
- Comparison of PET/CT and MRI in the Diagnosis of Bone Metastasis in Prostate Cancer Patients: A Network Analysis of Diagnostic Studies.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: The aim of our study was to compare Tc-99m MDP bone scan and Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT in terms of detection of bone metastasis in prostate cancer patients. Materials and methods: A total of 28 prostate cancer patients with bone scan and PSMA PET/CT performed within 90 days were retrospectively included in our analysis. All bone lesions were scored as negative (score-0), positive (score-1), or suspicious (score-2) for metastasis by two experienced nuclear medicine physicians. Both patient-based and region-based analyses were made for all osseous lesions. Results: On per-patient analysis; sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were 72.7%, 52.9%, 50%, 75%, and 60.7%, respectively, for bone scan and 90.9%, 100%, 100%, 94.4%, and 96.4%, respectively, for PSMA PET/CT. On per-region analysis; sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 76.2%, 80.9%, 57.1%, 91.1%, and 79.8%, respectively, for bone scan and 85.7%, 100%, 100%, 95.5%, and 95.4%, respectively, for PSMA PET/CT. Conclusion: Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT has higher sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared to bone scan in terms of bone metastasis detection in prostate cancer patients. Therefore, it might be the modality of choice for patients with suspicion for metastatic disease, despite negative bone scan and conventional imaging 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.