ArticleWorld journal of urology2022
Axumin (
Article in World journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of the study was to determine whether Axumin (
methodsThis prospective study enrolled men with at least one PI-RADS 4/5 ROI on multi-parametric MRI and no csPCa on prior biopsy defined as Gleason grade group (GGG) > 1. All men underwent an Axumin PET/MRI and only-persistent PI-RADS > 2 ROI were advised to undergo a repeat biopsy. A PET cancer suspicion score (PETCSS) was internally developed to stratify PET avid lesions according to their suspicion of harboring csPCa. The sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the PETCSS for predicting csPCa were assessed. Relative risk was calculated to analyze the association of baseline variables with csPCa on repeat biopsy.
resultsThirty-eight ROI on 36 enrolled men were analyzed. Fourteen (36.8%) were downgraded to PI-RADS 1/2 and were not subjected to repeat biopsy. Thirteen (92.9%) of these downgraded scans also exhibited low-risk PETCSS. Overall, 18/22 (81.2%) subjects underwent a repeat per protocol biopsy. Of the 20 ROI subjected to repeat biopsy, eight (40%) were found to harbour csPCa. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the PETCSS were 50, 50, 40, and 60%, respectively. No predictor of csPCa was found in the risk analysis.
conclusionOur pilot study showed that both MRI and PET sequences have limited performance for identifying those persistently suspicious PI-RADS 4/5 ROI that are found to harbor csPCa on repeat biopsy.
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.