Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37679601›Full record

ReviewProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2024

Application of next-generation imaging in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer.

Judd W Moul, Neal D Shore, Kenneth J Pienta, Johannes Czernin, Martin T King, Stephen J Freedland

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Controversies in the use of next-generation imaging for evaluation and treatment decision-making in patients with prostate cancer after biochemical recurrence: views from a Spanish expert panel.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Judd W Moul *Duke Cancer Institute and Division of Urology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9228-8344
Neal D Shore *Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC, USA.
Kenneth J PientaJohns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4138-2186
Johannes CzerninDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Martin T KingBrigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Stephen J FreedlandSamuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Stephen.Freedland@cshs.org.ORCID 0000-0002-8104-6419
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USCarolina Urologic Research Center · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · USDuke University · USJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

UCLA SPORE in Brain CancerP50CA211015 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Yvonne Yu-Hsuan Chen · 2017 to 2026
$25.2M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA211015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiochemical recurrence (BCR) following primary interventional treatment occurs in approximately one-third of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Next-generation imaging (NGI) can identify local and metastatic recurrence with greater sensitivity than conventional imaging, potentially allowing for more effective interventions. This narrative review examines the current clinical evidence on the utility of NGI for patients with BCR.

methodsA search of PubMed was conducted to identify relevant publications on NGI applied to BCR. Given other relevant recent reviews on the topic, this review focused on papers published between January 2018 to May 2023.

resultsNGI technologies, including positron emission tomography (PET) radiotracers and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, have demonstrated increased sensitivity and selectivity for diagnosing BCR at prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentrations <2.0 ng/ml. Detection rates range between 46% and 50%, with decreasing PSA levels for choline (1-3 ng/ml), fluciclovine (0.5-1 ng/ml), and prostate-specific membrane antigen (0.2-0.49 ng/ml) PET radiotracers. Expert working groups and European and US medical societies recommend NGI for patients with BCR.

conclusionsAvailable data support the improved detection performance and selectivity of NGI modalities versus conventional imaging techniques; however, limited clinical evidence exists demonstrating the application of NGI to treatment decision-making and its impact on patient outcomes. The emergence of NGI and displacement of conventional imaging may require a reexamination of the current definitions of BCR, altering our understanding of early recurrence. Redefining the BCR disease state by formalizing the role of NGI in patient management decisions will facilitate greater alignment across research efforts and better reflect the published literature.

Indexed as

Neoplasm Recurrence, LocalProstatic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorHumansMaleMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyProstate-Specific AntigenBiomarkers, TumorProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID37679601
PMCPMC11096127
OpenAlexW4386527973

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.