Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31492992›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2020

Performance of

Barbara J Amorim, Vinay Prabhu, Sara S Marco, Debra Gervais, Willian E Palmer, Pedram Heidari, Mark Vangel, Philip J Saylor, Onofrio A Catalano

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Performance ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Barbara J AmorimDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4079-9577
Vinay PrabhuDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Sara S MarcoDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Puerta de Hierro University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Debra GervaisDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Willian E PalmerDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8278-6232
Pedram HeidariDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6383-465X
Mark VangelBiostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Philip J SaylorMassachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4849-3695
Onofrio A CatalanoDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. ocatalano@mgh.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7733-4138
Harvard University · USHospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose

methodsWe evaluated 8 patients with CRPC metastatic to bones, some before and some after radium therapy, who underwent 13 fluciclovine-PET/MR studies. We analyzed the performance of radionuclide bone scan (RBS), MR alone, fluciclovine-PET alone, and fluciclovine-PET/MR in detecting osseous metastases. Lesion size, characteristics (early sclerotic, late sclerotic, mixed, lytic), SUVmax, and ADCmean were assessed. The reference standard was a combination of clinical information and correlation with both prior and follow-up imaging.

resultsOf 347 metastatic bony lesions in 13 studies, 238/347 (68%) were detected by fluciclovine-PET alone, 286/347 (82%) by RBS, 344/347 (99%) by MR alone, and 347/347 (100%) by fluciclovine-PET/MR. Fluciclovine-PET/MR and MR had the best performance (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between fluciclovine-PET/MR and MR alone (p = 0.25). Fluciclovine-PET had a lower detection rate especially with late sclerotic lesions (p < 0.001). There was a moderate inverse correlation between lesion SUVmax and ADCmean (r = - 0.49; p < 0.001).

conclusionsThis study suggests that fluciclovine-PET/MR and MR have high sensitivity for detecting osseous metastases in CRPC. Fluciclovine-PET alone underperformed in detecting late sclerotic lesions. The inverse correlation between SUVmax and ADCmean suggests a possible relationship between tumor metabolism and cellularity.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsProstatic NeoplasmsProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantBone and BonesHumansMalePositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyFluciclovineOsseous metastasesPET/MRProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID31492992
OpenAlexW2972010937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.