Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33933111›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2021

A survey among German-speaking radiation oncologists on PET-based radiotherapy of prostate cancer.

Marco M E Vogel, Sabrina Dewes, Eva K Sage, Michal Devecka, Jürgen E Gschwend, Matthias Eiber, Stephanie E Combs, Kilian Schiller

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Biochemical failure-free survival ofScientific reports · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marco M E VogelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. marco.vogel@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2942-6761
Sabrina DewesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Eva K SageDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Michal DeveckaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Jürgen E GschwendDepartment of Urology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany.
Matthias EiberDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany.
Stephanie E CombsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Kilian SchillerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
TUM Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPositron emission tomography-(PET) has evolved as a powerful tool to guide treatment for prostate cancer (PC). The aim of this survey was to evaluate the acceptance and use of PET-especially with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) targeting tracers-in clinical routine for radiotherapy (RT) and the impact on target volume definition and dose prescription.

methodsWe developed an online survey, which we distributed via e-mail to members of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO). The survey included questions on patterns of care of RT for PC with/without PET. For evaluation of doses we used the equivalent dose at fractionation of 2 Gy with α/β = 1.5 Gy [EQD2(1.5 Gy)].

resultsFrom 109 participants, 78.9% have the possibility to use PET for RT planning. Most centers use PSMA-targeting tracers (98.8%). In 39.5%, PSMA-PET for biochemical relapse after prior surgery is initiated at PSA ≥ 0.5 ng/mL, while 30.2% will perform PET at ≥ 0.2 ng/mL (≥ 1.0 ng/mL: 16.3%, ≥ 2.0 ng/mL: 2.3%, regardless of PSA: 11.7%). In case of PET-positive local recurrence (LR) and pelvic lymph nodes (LNs), 97.7% and 96.5% of the participants will apply an escalated dose. The median total dose in EQD2(1.5 Gy) was 70.00 Gy (range: 56.89-85.71) for LR and 62.00 Gy (range: 52.61-80.00) for LNs. A total number of ≤ 3 (22.0%) or ≤ 5 (20.2%) distant lesions was most often described as applicable for the definition as oligometastatic PC.

conclusionPSMA-PET is widely used among German radiation oncologists. However, specific implications on treatment planning differ among physicians. Therefore, further trials and guidelines for PET-based RT are warranted.

Indexed as

LanguageGermanyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyPrognosisProstatic NeoplasmsRadiation OncologistsRadiopharmaceuticalsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedSurveys and QuestionnairesRadiopharmaceuticalsProstate cancerPSMA-PETRadiotherapySurvey

Identifiers

PMID33933111
PMCPMC8088662
OpenAlexW3159438616

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.