Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38912830›Full record

ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2024

Accuracy of gross tumour volume delineation with [68Ga]-PSMA-PET compared to histopathology for high-risk prostate cancer.

Maryam Zarei, Elin Wallsten, Josefine Grefve, Karin Söderkvist, Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson, Kristina Sandgren, Joakim Jonsson, Angsana Keeratijarut Lindberg, Erik Nilsson, Anders Bergh and 11 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

21 authors.

Maryam ZareiDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Biomedical engineering and Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. maryam.zarei@umu.se.
Elin WallstenDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Biomedical engineering and Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Josefine GrefveDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Biomedical engineering and Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Karin SöderkvistDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Adalsteinn GunnlaugssonSkane University Hospital, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Lund, Sweden.
Kristina SandgrenDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Biomedical engineering and Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Joakim JonssonDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Biomedical engineering and Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Angsana Keeratijarut LindbergDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Biomedical engineering and Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Erik NilssonDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Biomedical engineering and Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Anders BerghDepartment of Medical Biosciences, Pathology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Björn ZackrissonDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Mathieu MoreauSkane University Hospital, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Lund, Sweden.
Camilla Thellenberg KarlssonDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Lars E OlssonDepartment of Translational Medicine, Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Anders WidmarkDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Oncology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Katrine RiklundDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Diagnostic Radiology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Lennart BlomqvistDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Biomedical engineering and Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden; Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.
Vibeke Berg LoegagerDepartment of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital in Herlev, Herlev, Denmark.
Jan AxelssonDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Biomedical engineering and Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Sara N StrandbergDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Diagnostic Radiology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Tufve NyholmDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Biomedical engineering and Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe delineation of intraprostatic lesions is vital for correct delivery of focal radiotherapy boost in patients with prostate cancer (PC). Errors in the delineation could translate into reduced tumour control and potentially increase the side effects. The purpose of this study is to compare PET-based delineation methods with histopathology. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe study population consisted of 15 patients with confirmed high-risk PC intended for prostatectomy. [68Ga]-PSMA-PET/MR was performed prior to surgery. Prostate lesions identified in histopathology were transferred to the in vivo [68Ga]-PSMA-PET/MR coordinate system. Four radiation oncologists manually delineated intraprostatic lesions based on PET data. Various semi-automatic segmentation methods were employed, including absolute and relative thresholds, adaptive threshold, and multi-level Otsu threshold.

resultsThe gross tumour volumes (GTVs) delineated by the oncologists showed a moderate level of interobserver agreement with Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.68. In comparison with histopathology, manual delineations exhibited the highest median DSC and the lowest false discovery rate (FDR) among all approaches. Among semi-automatic approaches, GTVs generated using standardized uptake value (SUV) thresholds above 4 (SUV > 4) demonstrated the highest median DSC (0.41), with 0.51 median lesion coverage ratio, FDR of 0.66 and the 95th percentile of the Hausdorff distance (HD95%) of 8.22 mm.

interpretationManual delineations showed a moderate level of interobserver agreement. Compared to histopathology, manual delineations and SUV > 4 exhibited the highest DSC and the lowest HD95% values. The methods that resulted in a high lesion coverage were associated with a large overestimation of the size of the lesions.

Indexed as

Gallium IsotopesGallium RadioisotopesProstatic NeoplasmsTumor BurdenAgedEdetic AcidHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedOligopeptidesPositron-Emission TomographyProstatectomyRadiopharmaceuticalsEdetic Acidgallium 68 PSMA-11Gallium IsotopesGallium RadioisotopesOligopeptidesRadiopharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID38912830
PMCPMC11332483

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.