Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34463809›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2022

Analytical performance of aPROMISE: automated anatomic contextualization, detection, and quantification of [

Kerstin Johnsson, Johan Brynolfsson, Hannicka Sahlstedt, Nicholas G Nickols, Matthew Rettig, Stephan Probst, Michael J Morris, Anders Bjartell, Mathias Eiber, Aseem Anand

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Deep-learning-based software versus experienced nuclear medicine physician to read [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Impact of baselineEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. PrognosticEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Automated segmentation of lesions and organs at risk on [Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

10 authors.

Kerstin JohnssonDepartment of Data Science and Machine Learning, EXINI Diagnostics AB, Lund, Sweden.
Johan BrynolfssonDepartment of Data Science and Machine Learning, EXINI Diagnostics AB, Lund, Sweden.
Hannicka SahlstedtDepartment of Data Science and Machine Learning, EXINI Diagnostics AB, Lund, Sweden.
Nicholas G NickolsRadiation Oncology Service, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Matthew RettigDepartment of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Stephan ProbstNuclear Medicine, Medical Imaging, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Michael J MorrisDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Anders BjartellDepartment of Translational Medicine, Division of Urological Cancers, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Mathias EiberDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Aseem AnandDepartment of Data Science and Machine Learning, EXINI Diagnostics AB, Lund, Sweden. aseem.anand@med.lu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9452-6094

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe application of automated image analyses could improve and facilitate standardization and consistency of quantification in [

methodsTo evaluate the deep learning algorithm, the automated segmentations of the low-dose CT component of PSMA PET/CT scans from 20 patients were compared to manual segmentations. Dice scores were used to quantify the similarities between the automated and manual segmentations. Next, the automated quantification of tracer uptake in the reference organs and detection and pre-segmentation of potential lesions were evaluated in 339 patients with prostate cancer, who were all enrolled in the phase II/III OSPREY study. Three nuclear medicine physicians performed the retrospective independent reads of OSPREY images with aPROMISE. Quantitative consistency was assessed by the pairwise Pearson correlations and standard deviation between the readers and aPROMISE. The sensitivity of detection and pre-segmentation of potential lesions was evaluated by determining the percent of manually selected abnormal lesions that were automatically detected by aPROMISE.

resultsThe Dice scores for bone segmentations ranged from 0.88 to 0.95. The Dice scores of the PSMA PET/CT reference organs, thoracic aorta and liver, were 0.89 and 0.97, respectively. Dice scores of other visceral organs, including prostate, were observed to be above 0.79. The Pearson correlation for blood pool reference was higher between any manual reader and aPROMISE, than between any pair of manual readers. The standard deviations of reference organ uptake across all patients as determined by aPROMISE (SD = 0.21 blood pool and SD = 1.16 liver) were lower compared to those of the manual readers. Finally, the sensitivity of aPROMISE detection and pre-segmentation was 91.5% for regional lymph nodes, 90.6% for all lymph nodes, and 86.7% for bone in metastatic patients.

conclusionIn this analytical study, we demonstrated the segmentation accuracy of the deep learning algorithm, the consistency in quantitative assessment across multiple readers, and the high sensitivity in detecting potential lesions. The study provides a foundational framework for clinical evaluation of aPROMISE in standardized reporting of PSMA PET/CT.

Indexed as

Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstatic NeoplasmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleProstateRetrospective StudiesaPROMISEPSMA PET/CT evaluationSegmentationStandardized reporting

Identifiers

PMID34463809
PMCPMC8803714

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.