ArticleJournal of medical imaging and radiation oncology2022
Combination of MRI prostate and 18F-DCFPyl PSMA PET/CT detects all clinically significant prostate cancers in treatment-naive patients: An international multicentre retrospective study.
Article in Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Head-to-head comparison of prostate-specific membrane antigen PET and multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of pretreatment patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.European radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Discordance between prostate MRI and PSMA-PET/CT: the next big challenge for primary prostate tumor assessment?European radiology · 2025Article
- Biopsy-free radical prostatectomy: a narrative review considering rationale, limitations, and current data.Prostate international · 2025Review
- Diagnostic performance ofOncology letters · 2024Article
- The diagnostic performance ofFrontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionClinical and biochemical assessment and biopsies can miss clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa) in up to 20% of patients and diagnose clinically insignificant tumours leading to overtreatment. This retrospective study analyses the accuracy of
methodsThis is a retrospective dual-institution study of patients who underwent contemporaneous MRI and PSMA-PET between January 2017 and March 2020 with histologic confirmation. The images were re-reviewed and concordance between modalities assessed. Results were compared with histopathology to determine the ability of MRI and PSMA-PET to detect csPCA.
resultsMRI and PSMA-PET detected the same index lesion in 90.8% of cases with a kappa of 0.82. PET detected an additional 6.2% of index lesions which were MRI occult. MRI detected an additional 3.1% which were PET occult. No additional csPCa was identified on pathology which was not seen on imaging. The sensitivity of PSMA-PET in detecting csPCa is 96.7% and that of MRI is 93.4% with no statistically significant difference between the two (P = 0.232). Both modalities detected all four cases of non-csPCa with these being considered false positives.
conclusionBoth mpMRI and 18F-DCFPyL-PSMA-PET/CT have high sensitivity for detecting csPCa with high agreement between modalities. There were no synchronous csPCa lesions detected on pathology that were not detected on imaging too.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.