Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37736808›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2024

The prognostic significance of a negative PSMA-PET scan prior to salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy.

Sonja Adebahr, Alexander Althaus, Sophia Scharl, Iosif Strouthos, Andrea Farolfi, Francesca Serani, Helena Lanzafame, Christian Trapp, Stefan A Koerber, Jan C Peeken and 17 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Molecular Imaging in Photon Radiotherapy.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Prognostic significance of the mEPE score in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing ultrahypofractionated robotic SBRT.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Update on PSMA-based Prostate Cancer Imaging.Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Prognostic significance of a negative PSMA PET/CT in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Observational
  14. Article
  15. 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

27 authors at 14 institutions in 5 countries.

Sonja AdebahrDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site DKTK-Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Alexander AlthausDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Sophia ScharlDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Iosif StrouthosDepartment of Radiation Oncology, German Oncology Center, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Andrea FarolfiNuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Francesca SeraniNuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Helena LanzafameNuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Christian TrappDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Stefan A KoerberDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Jan C PeekenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany.
Marco M E VogelDepartment 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.
Simon K B SpohnDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site DKTK-Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Anca-Ligia GrosuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site DKTK-Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Stephanie G C KroezeRadiation Oncology Center KSA-KSB, Canton Hospital of Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
Matthias GuckenbergerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Stefano FantiNuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
George HrubyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital - University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Louise EmmettDepartment of Theranostics and Nuclear medicine, St Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Claus BelkaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Nina-Sophie Schmidt-HegemannDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Christoph HenkenberensDepartment of Radiotherapy and Special Oncology, Medical School Hannover, Hanover, Germany.
Daniel M AebersoldDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Thomas WiegelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Ali Afshar-OromiehDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Constantinos ZamboglouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site DKTK-Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Mohamed ShelanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. mohamed.shelan@insel.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-6477-6655
Azienda USL di Bologna · ITLMU Klinikum · DEUniversity of Bern · CHTUM Klinikum · DEUniversity Hospital Ulm · DEUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DEUniversity of Zurich · CHEuropean University Cyprus · CYGerman Cancer Research Center · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DERoyal North Shore Hospital · AUUniversity Hospital of Bern · CHUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe optimal management for early recurrent prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with negative prostate-specific membrane antigen positron-emission tomography (PSMA-PET) scan is an ongoing subject of debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of salvage radiotherapy (SRT) in patients with biochemical recurrence with negative PSMA PET finding.

methodsThis retrospective, multicenter (11 centers, 5 countries) analysis included patients who underwent SRT following biochemical recurrence (BR) of PC after RP without evidence of disease on PSMA-PET staging. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), metastatic-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression assessed predefined predictors of survival outcomes.

resultsThree hundred patients were included, 253 (84.3%) received SRT to the prostate bed only, 46 (15.3%) additional elective pelvic nodal irradiation, respectively. Only 41 patients (13.7%) received concomitant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Median follow-up after SRT was 33 months (IQR: 20-46 months). Three-year bRFS, MFS, and OS following SRT were 73.9%, 87.8%, and 99.1%, respectively. Three-year bRFS was 77.5% and 48.3% for patients with PSA levels before PSMA-PET ≤ 0.5 ng/ml and > 0.5 ng/ml, respectively. Using univariate analysis, the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade > 2 (p = 0.006), metastatic pelvic lymph nodes at surgery (p = 0.032), seminal vesicle involvement (p < 0.001), pre-SRT PSA level of > 0.5 ng/ml (p = 0.004), and lack of concomitant ADT (p = 0.023) were significantly associated with worse bRFS. On multivariate Cox proportional hazards, seminal vesicle infiltration (p = 0.007), ISUP score >2 (p = 0.048), and pre SRT PSA level > 0.5 ng/ml (p = 0.013) remained significantly associated with worse bRFS.

conclusionFavorable bRFS after SRT in patients with BR and negative PSMA-PET following RP was achieved. These data support the usage of early SRT for patients with negative PSMA-PET findings.

Indexed as

ProstateProstatic NeoplasmsAndrogen AntagonistsHumansMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPositron-Emission TomographyPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyPrognosisProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenRetrospective StudiesSalvage TherapySeminal VesiclesAndrogen AntagonistsProstate-Specific AntigenPET negativeProstate cancerPSMA-PETSalvage radiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID37736808
PMCPMC10774185
OpenAlexW4386945563

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.