Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34660290›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Prostate Cancer Patients With or Without 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT Prior to Salvage Radiotherapy of the Prostatic Fossa.

Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann, Constantinos Zamboglou, Reinhard Thamm, Chukwuka Eze, Simon Kirste, Simon Spohn, Minglun Li, Christian Stief, Christian Bolenz, Wolfgang Schultze-Seemann and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

17 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Nina-Sophie Schmidt-HegemannDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany.
Constantinos ZamboglouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Reinhard ThammDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Chukwuka EzeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany.
Simon KirsteDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Simon SpohnDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Minglun LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany.
Christian StiefDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Christian BolenzDepartment of Urology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Wolfgang Schultze-SeemannDepartment of Urology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Peter BartensteinDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Vikas PrasadDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Ute GanswindtDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria.
Anca-Ligia GrosuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Claus BelkaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany.
Benjamin MayerInstitute for Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Thomas WiegelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
University of Freiburg · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEUniversität Ulm · DELMU Klinikum · DEUniversity Hospital Ulm · DEInnsbruck Medical University · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction68Ga-PSMA PET/CT is associated with unprecedented sensitivity for localization of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer at low PSA levels prior to radiotherapy. Aim of the present analysis is to examine whether patients undergoing postoperative, salvage radiotherapy (sRT) of the prostatic fossa with no known nodal or distant metastases on conventional imaging (CT and/or MRI) and on positron emission tomography/computed tomography (68Ga-PSMA PET/CT) will have an improved biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) compared to patients with no known nodal or distant metastases on conventional imaging only. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis retrospective analysis is based on 459 patients (95 with and 364 without 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT). BRFS (PSA < post-sRT Nadir + 0.2 ng/ml) was the primary study endpoint. This was first analysed by Kaplan-Meier and uni- and multivariate Cox regression analysis for the entire cohort and then again after matched-pair analysis using tumor stage, Gleason score, PSA at time of sRT and radiation dose as matching parameters.

resultsMedian follow-up was 77.5 months for patients without and 33 months for patients with 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. For the entire cohort, tumor stage (pT2 vs. pT3-4; p= <0.001), Gleason score (GS ≤ 7 vs. GS8-10; p=0.003), pre-sRT PSA (<0.5 vs. ≥0.5ng/ml; p<0.001) and sRT dose (<70 vs. ≥70Gy; p<0.001) were the only factors significantly associated with improved BRFS. This was not seen for the use of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT prior to sRT (p=0.789). Matched-pair analysis consisted of 95 pairs of PCa patients with or without PET/CT and no significant difference in BRFS based on the use of PET/CT was evident (p=0.884).

conclusionThis analysis did not show an improvement in BRFS using 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT prior to sRT neither for the entire cohort nor after matched-pair analysis after excluding patients with PET-positive lymph node or distant metastases a priori. As no improved BRFS resulted with implementation of 68Ga-PSMA PET in sRT planning, sRT should not be deferred until the best "diagnostic window" for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT.

Indexed as

biochemical recurrencecancerprostatePSMA PET/CTradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID34660290
PMCPMC8517476
OpenAlexW3203622835

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.