Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33550425›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2021

Comparing the diagnostic performance of radiotracers in recurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Ian Leigh Alberts, Svenja Elizabeth Seide, Clemens Mingels, Karl Peter Bohn, Kuangyu Shi, Helle D Zacho, Axel Rominger, Ali Afshar-Oromieh

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 56 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. International journal of clinical oncology · 2026
    Article
  10. Evaluating [Journal of market access & health policy · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. The Role of Nuclear Medicine in Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Comparison ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Clinical value of [Theranostics · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ian Leigh AlbertsDepartment of Nuclear Medicine. Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Street: Freiburgstr. 18, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland. ian.alberts@insel.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2095-2263
Svenja Elizabeth SeideInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Clemens MingelsDepartment of Nuclear Medicine. Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Street: Freiburgstr. 18, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Karl Peter BohnDepartment of Nuclear Medicine. Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Street: Freiburgstr. 18, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Kuangyu ShiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine. Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Street: Freiburgstr. 18, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Helle D ZachoDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Cancer Research Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Hobrovej 18-22, DK-9000, Aalborg, Denmark.
Axel RomingerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine. Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Street: Freiburgstr. 18, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Ali Afshar-OromiehDepartment of Nuclear Medicine. Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Street: Freiburgstr. 18, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMany radiotracers are currently available for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer (rPC), yet many have not been compared head-to-head in comparative imaging studies. There is therefore an unmet need for evidence synthesis to guide evidence-based decisions in the selection of radiotracers. The objective of this study was therefore to assess the detection rate of various radiotracers for the rPC.

methodsThe PUBMED, EMBASE, and the EU and NIH trials databases were searched without date or language restriction for comparative imaging tracers for 13 radiotracers of principal interest. Key search terms included 18F-PSMA-1007, 18F-DCPFyl, 68Ga-PSMA-11, 18F-PSMA-11, 68Ga-PSMA-I&T, 68Ga-THP-PSMA, 64Cu-PSMA-617, 18F-JK-PSMA-7, 18F-Fluciclovine, 18F-FABC, 18F-Choline, 11C-Choline, and 68Ga-RM2. Studies reporting comparative imaging data in humans in rPC were selected. Single armed studies and matched pair analyses were excluded. Twelve studies with eight radiotracers were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers screened all studies (using the PRISMA-NMA statement) for inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (using the QUADAS-2 tool). A network meta-analysis was performed using Markov-Chain Monte Carlo Bayesian analysis to obtain estimated detection rate odds ratios for each tracer combination.

resultsA majority of studies were judged to be at risk of publication bias. With the exception of 18F-PSMA-1007, little difference in terms of detection rate was revealed between the three most commonly used PSMA-radiotracers (

conclusionDifferences in patient-level detection rates were observed between PSMA- and choline-radiotracers. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to favour one of the four routinely used PSMA-radioligands (PSMA-11, PSMA-1007, PSMA-I&T, and DCFPyl) over another owing to the limited evidence base and risk of publication bias revealed by our systematic review. A further limitation was lack of reporting on diagnostic accuracy, which might favour radiotracers with low specificity in an analysis restricted only to detection rate. The NMA derived can be used to inform the design of future clinical trials and highlight areas where current evidence is weak.

Indexed as

Copper RadioisotopesProstatic NeoplasmsBayes TheoremGlutaratesHumansMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPhosphinic AcidsPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyPyridines18F-JK-PSMA-7(18)F-PSMA-11Copper-64Copper RadioisotopesGlutaratesPhosphinic AcidsPyridinesCholineComparative imagingNetwork meta-analysisPET/CTPositron emission tomographyPSMARadiotracers

Identifiers

PMID33550425
PMCPMC8263438

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.