Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32617640›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2021

Consensus statements on PSMA PET/CT response assessment criteria in prostate cancer.

Stefano Fanti, Karolien Goffin, Boris A Hadaschik, Ken Herrmann, Tobias Maurer, Steven MacLennan, Daniela E Oprea-Lager, Wim Jg Oyen, Olivier Rouvière, Nicolas Mottet and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
15.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

122 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 203 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Recommendations from the Galician Oncological Society and the Galician Society of Nuclear Medicine for the use ofClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Head-to-head comparison betweenJournal of translational medicine · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. The additive value ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  20. The Role of Nuclear Medicine in Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review

62 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.

Stefano FantiNuclear Medicine Division, Policlinico S Orsola, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Karolien GoffinDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Hospital Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Boris A HadaschikDepartment of Urology, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Ken HerrmannDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Tobias MaurerDepartment of Urology and Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, Universitätsklinikum, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Steven MacLennanAcademic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
Daniela E Oprea-LagerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wim Jg OyenHumanitas University and Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy.
Olivier RouvièreDepartment of Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Nicolas MottetUniversity Hôpital Nord, Saint Etienne, France.
Anders BjartellDepartment of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden. anders.bjartell@med.lu.se.ORCID 0000-0002-5761-3786
Deutschen Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung · DEAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLHôpital Nord · FRHumanitas University · ITIRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola · ITKU Leuven · BESkåne University Hospital · SEUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProstate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is used for (re)staging prostate cancer (PCa) and as a biomarker for evaluating response to therapy, but lacks established response criteria. A panel of PCa experts in nuclear medicine, radiology, and/or urology met on February 21, 2020, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, to formulate criteria for PSMA PET/CT-based response in patients treated for metastatic PCa and optimal timing to use it.

methodsPanelists received thematic topics and relevant literature prior to the meeting. Statements on how to interpret response and progression on therapy in PCa with PSMA PET/CT and when to use it were developed. Panelists voted anonymously on a nine-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (9). Median scores described agreement and consensus.

resultsPSMA PET/CT consensus statements concerned utility, best timing for performing, criteria for evaluation of response, patients who could benefit, and handling of radiolabeled PSMA PET tracers. Consensus was reached on all statements. PSMA PET/CT can be used before and after any local and systemic treatment in patients with metastatic disease to evaluate response to treatment. Ideally, PSMA PET/CT imaging criteria should categorize patients as responders, patients with stable disease, partial response, and complete response, or as non-responders. Specific clinical scenarios such as oligometastatic or polymetastatic disease deserve special consideration.

conclusionsAdoption of PSMA PET/CT should be supported by indication for appropriate use and precise criteria for interpretation. PSMA PET/CT criteria should categorize patients as responders or non-responders. Specific clinical scenarios deserve special consideration.

Indexed as

Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleNetherlandsMonitoringOligometastatic prostate cancerPERCISTPET/CTPolymetastatic prostate cancerProstate cancerProstate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)PSMA ligandRECIST

Identifiers

PMID32617640
PMCPMC7835167
OpenAlexW3040491196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.