Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37724670›Full record

Trial reportCurrent radiopharmaceuticals2024

An

Hongliang Fu, Sheng Liang, Miaomiao Xu, Jun Guo, Qiang Liu, Jian Kang, Linlin Zhang, Zihao Liu, Lin Ding, Yufei Ma and 5 more

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Current radiopharmaceuticals, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

15 authors.

Hongliang FuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1655, Kong Jiang Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Sheng LiangDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1655, Kong Jiang Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Miaomiao XuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1655, Kong Jiang Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Jun GuoDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1655, Kong Jiang Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Qiang LiuDepartment of Urology, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1655, Kong Jiang Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Jian KangDepartment of Urology, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1655, Kong Jiang Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Linlin ZhangDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1655, Kong Jiang Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Zihao LiuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1655, Kong Jiang Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Lin DingDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1655, Kong Jiang Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Yufei MaDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1655, Kong Jiang Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Bin YangDepartment of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200072, China.
Xudong YaoDepartment of Urology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200072, China.
Jun QiDepartment of Urology, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1655, Kong Jiang Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Hui WangDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 1655, Kong Jiang Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200092, China.
Yongquan CaiShanghai Ruxu Biotechnology, Inc, 4777 North Jia-Song Road, Jiading District, Shanghai, 201814, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the performance of 18F-MD-PSMA PET/CT in patients previously treated for prostate cancer by either surgery or therapy, but later relapsed biochemically.

methodsThis retrospective study enrolled 213 patients in sequence previously treated for prostate cancer by either surgery or therapy, but later PSA relapsed. A total of 191 of these 213 patients were included in this analysis. All patients were biochemically relapsed after radical prostatectomy or therapy, had 18F-MD-PSMA PET/CT scan within 1 week, and were off hormonal therapy at the time of the scans. The new tracer was compared directly with 11C-choline in sensitivity.

resultsIn 3 patients, a side-by-side comparison between 18F-MD-PSMA and 11C-choline was performed, and it was found that the former was about 3 times more sensitive than the latter. The analysis of PET imaging using 18F-MD-PSMA in 191 relapsed patients showed that less than 10% of patients showed the disease limited in the prostate. Among the remote lesions, the number in decreasing order was bone, followed by lymph nodes and other organs. The maximal SUV in lesions in each patient followed an exponential decay, with SUV inclined to the lower end. The Gleason score measured at the diagnosis showed no correlation with the average number of lesions in each patient, the average maximal SUV values among this cohort of patients, and the PSA values measured at the time of PET imaging. The number of lesions observed in each patient has no correlation with the PSA value measured at the time of PET imaging. When PSA value was measured as an independent biomarker at the time of PET imaging, the positivity of PET imaging using 18F-MD-PSMA increased along with an increase in PSA value, but with exceptions where PSMA expression was low or negative. From the PET imaging of this radioligand, the majority of patients showed oligo-metastasis, favoring using local therapy to manage the disease.

conclusionAn 18F-MD-PSMA as a radioligand was found to be superior to 11C-choline in the setting of patients with biochemical relapse after previous treatment. Its PET imaging results matched those of established PSMA radioligands, but its chemical structure was found to have added features to conjugate with other functional molecules, such as those with therapeutic properties. This radioligand lays the foundation for our further work.

Indexed as

CholineNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstatic NeoplasmsRadiopharmaceuticalsAgedCarbon RadioisotopesEdetic AcidFluorine RadioisotopesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenRetrospective StudiesCarbon RadioisotopesCholineEdetic AcidFluorine RadioisotopesProstate-Specific AntigenRadiopharmaceuticals11C-choline18F-MD-PSMAoligo-metastasis.PET/CTprostate cancerPSA

Identifiers

PMID37724670
PMCPMC11475390

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.