Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37219907›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Development and Validation of a Multi-institutional Nomogram of Outcomes for PSMA-PET-Based Salvage Radiotherapy for Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

Constantinos Zamboglou, Jan C Peeken, Ali Janbain, Sandrine Katsahian, Iosif Strouthos, Konstantinos Ferentinos, Andrea Farolfi, Stefan A Koerber, Juergen Debus, Marco E Vogel and 20 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Impact of PSMA PET on Prostate Cancer Management.Current treatment options in oncology · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Clinical practice in prostate PET imaging.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2023
    Review
  12. 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

30 authors at 17 institutions in 5 countries.

Constantinos ZamboglouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Jan C PeekenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany.
Ali JanbainCité University, AP-HP, European Hospital Georges-Pompidou, Clinical research unit, Clinical Investigation Center 1418 Clinical Epidemiology, INSERM, INRIA, HeKA, Paris, France.
Sandrine KatsahianCité University, AP-HP, European Hospital Georges-Pompidou, Clinical research unit, Clinical Investigation Center 1418 Clinical Epidemiology, INSERM, INRIA, HeKA, Paris, France.
Iosif StrouthosDepartment of Radiation Oncology, German Oncology Center, University Hospital of the European University, Limassol, Cyprus.
Konstantinos FerentinosDepartment of Radiation Oncology, German Oncology Center, University Hospital of the European University, Limassol, Cyprus.
Andrea FarolfiDivision of Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Stefan A KoerberDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Juergen DebusDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Marco E VogelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany.
Stephanie E CombsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany.
Alexis VrachimisDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, German Oncology Center, University Hospital of the European University, Limassol, Cyprus.
Alessio Giuseppe MorgantiDivision of Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Simon K B SpohnDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Mohamed ShelanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Daniel M AebersoldDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Anca-Ligia GrosuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Francesco CeciDivision of Nuclear Medicine, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Christoph HenkenberensDepartment of Radiotherapy and Special Oncology, Medical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Stephanie G C KroezeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Matthias GuckenbergerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Stefano FantiDivision of Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Claus BelkaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Peter BartensteinDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
George HrubyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital-University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Sophia ScharlDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Thomas WiegelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Louise EmmettDepartment of Theranostics and Nuclear medicine, St Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Armelle ArnouxCité University, AP-HP, European Hospital Georges-Pompidou, Clinical research unit, Clinical Investigation Center 1418 Clinical Epidemiology, INSERM, INRIA, HeKA, Paris, France.
Nina-Sophie Schmidt-HegemannDepartment of Radiation Oncology KSA-KSB, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
Deutschen Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung · DEAzienda USL di Bologna · ITInserm · FRKantonsspital Aarau · CHUniversität Ulm · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEUniversity Hospital of Bern · CHHelmholtz Zentrum München · DEHôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou · FRLMU Klinikum · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DESt Vincent's Clinic · AUTechnical University of Munich · DEThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Milan · ITUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Prostate-specific antigen membrane positron-emission tomography (PSMA-PET) is increasingly used to guide salvage radiotherapy (sRT) after radical prostatectomy for patients with recurrent or persistent prostate cancer. Objective: To develop and validate a nomogram for prediction of freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) after PSMA-PET-based sRT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included 1029 patients with prostate cancer treated between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2020, at 11 centers from 5 countries. The initial database consisted of 1221 patients. All patients had a PSMA-PET scan prior to sRT. Data were analyzed in November 2022. Exposures: Patients with a detectable post-radical prostatectomy prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level treated with sRT to the prostatic fossa with or without additional sRT to pelvic lymphatics or concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were eligible. Main Outcomes and Measures: The FFBF rate was estimated, and a predictive nomogram was generated and validated. Biochemical relapse was defined as a PSA nadir of 0.2 ng/mL after sRT. Results: In the nomogram creation and validation process, 1029 patients (median age at sRT, 70 years [IQR, 64-74 years]) were included and further divided into a training set (n = 708), internal validation set (n = 271), and external outlier validation set (n = 50). The median follow-up was 32 months (IQR, 21-45 months). Based on the PSMA-PET scan prior to sRT, 437 patients (42.5%) had local recurrences and 313 patients (30.4%) had nodal recurrences. Pelvic lymphatics were electively irradiated for 395 patients (38.4%). All patients received sRT to the prostatic fossa: 103 (10.0%) received a dose of less than 66 Gy, 551 (53.5%) received a dose of 66 to 70 Gy, and 375 (36.5%) received a dose of more than 70 Gy. Androgen deprivation therapy was given to 325 (31.6%) patients. On multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, pre-sRT PSA level (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80 [95% CI, 1.41-2.31]), International Society of Urological Pathology grade in surgery specimen (grade 5 vs 1+2: HR, 2.39 [95% CI, 1.63-3.50], pT stage (pT3b+pT4 vs pT2: HR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.39-2.67]), surgical margins (R0 vs R1+R2+Rx: HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.48-0.78]), ADT use (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.37-0.65]), sRT dose (>70 vs ≤66 Gy: HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.29-0.67]), and nodal recurrence detected on PSMA-PET scans (HR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.85]) were associated with FFBF. The mean (SD) nomogram concordance index for FFBF was 0.72 (0.06) for the internal validation cohort and 0.67 (0.11) in the external outlier validation cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with prostate cancer presents an internally and externally validated nomogram that estimated individual patient outcomes after PSMA-PET-guided sRT.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsAndrogen AntagonistsAndrogensChronic DiseaseCohort StudiesHumansMaleNomogramsProstate-Specific AntigenRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesAndrogen AntagonistsAndrogensProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID37219907
PMCPMC10208140
OpenAlexW4377564613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.