ArticleScientific reports2024
Analytical performance validation of aPROMISE platform for prostate tumor burden, index and dominant tumor assessment with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT. A pilot study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive value of early PSMA upregulation for the response to enzalutamide ±Nature cancer · 2026Trial
- Future opportunities and nuances with the use of PSMA PET in prostate cancer (MD PET 1).Theranostics · 2026Review
- Comparison of diagnostic performance between manual diagnosis following PROMISE V2 and aPROMISE utilizing Ga/F-PSMA PET/CT.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To validate the performance of automated Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (aPROMISE) in quantifying total prostate disease burden with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT and to evaluate the interobserver and histopathologic concordance in the establishment of dominant and index tumor. Patients with a recent diagnosis of intermediate/high-risk prostate cancer underwent 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT for staging purpose. In positive-18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT scans, automated prostate tumor segmentation was performed using aPROMISE software and compared to an in-house semiautomatic-manual guided segmentation procedure. SUV and volume related variables were obtained with two softwares. A blinded evaluation of dominant tumor (DT) and index tumor (IT) location was assessed by both groups of observers. In histopathological analysis, Gleason, International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) group, DT and IT location were obtained. We compared all the obtained variables by both software packages using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's kappa coefficient (k) for the concordance analysis. Fifty-four patients with a positive
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.