Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35866190›Full record

ArticleClinical physiology and functional imaging2022

Detection of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer: Comparing conventional and digital [

Mimmi Bjöersdorff, Christopher Puterman, Jenny Oddstig, Jennifer Amidi, Sophia Zackrisson, Henrik Kjölhede, Anders Bjartell, Per Wollmer, Elin Trägårdh

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical physiology and functional imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Comparison of Digital versus AnalogDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
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

9 authors.

Mimmi BjöersdorffDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8715-507X
Christopher PutermanDepartment of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Jenny OddstigDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7588-5873
Jennifer AmidiDepartment of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Sophia ZackrissonDepartment of Translational Medicine, Diagnostic Radiology, Lund University and Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5678-3882
Henrik KjölhedeDepartment of Urology, Institute of Clinical Science, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6441-4729
Anders BjartellDepartment of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5761-3786
Per WollmerDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2448-9931
Elin TrägårdhDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7116-303X

Funding

Knut och Alice Wallenbergs StiftelseRegion Skåne
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPositron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) with [

methodsThe study retrospectively examined 177 patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer who had undergone staging with FCH PET-CT before ePLND. Images were obtained with either the conventional Philips Gemini PET-CT (n = 93) or the digital SiPM-based GE Discovery MI PET-CT (n = 84) and compared.

resultsImages that were obtained using the Philips Gemini PET-CT system showed 19 patients (20%) with suspected lymph node metastases, whereas the GE Discovery MI PET-CT revealed 36 such patients (43%). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 0.3, 0.84, 0.47, and 0.72 for the Philips Gemini, while they were 0.58, 0.62, 0.31, and 0.83 for the GE Discovery MI, respectively. The areas under the curves in a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were similar between the two PET-CT systems (0.57 for Philips Gemini and 0.58 for GE Discovery MI, p = 0.89).

conclusionsMarked differences in sensitivity and specificity were found for the different PET-CT systems, although the overall diagnostic performance was similar. These differences are probably due to differences in both hardware and software, including reconstruction algorithms, and should be considered when new technology is introduced.

Indexed as

Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstatic NeoplasmsCholineHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMaleNeoplasm StagingRadiopharmaceuticalsRetrospective StudiesCholinefluorocholinefluoromethylcholineRadiopharmaceuticalsdiagnostic performancelymph node dissectionpositron emission tomography-computed tomographysilicon photomultiplier-based technology

Identifiers

PMID35866190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.