ArticleAcademic radiology2025
Evaluating the Added Value of Concurrent Contrast-enhanced Diagnostic CT for PSMA-PET/CT Interpretation.
Article in Academic radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of PSMA PET/CT in identifying benign and malignant intracranial lesions in patients with prostate cancer.Clinical imaging · 2025Article
- Biphasic contrast-enhanced [EJNMMI research · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesTo determine whether concurrent contrast-enhanced diagnostic CT (DxCT) confers added diagnostic certainty compared to PSMA-PET/CT alone. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective multi-reader study analyzed imaging comprising combined F-18-piflufolastat PSMA-PET/CT with diagnostic chest/abdominopelvic CT from prostate cancer patients within the first 6 months of FDA-approval of the PET agent. Six nuclear radiology readers were randomly presented with PSMA-PET/CT studies with or without DxCT and asked to report their diagnostic certainty for PSMA-avid lesions found on PET. Subsequently, readers re-reviewed the same study after an interlude (with the CT if not previously presented and vice-versa) to determine if DxCT altered their diagnostic assessment. Inter-rater concordance was assessed on a subset of images read by all readers. Diagnostic certainties for PSMA-PET/CT with and without DxCT were compared, and the variables for which DxCT may add value were examined.
resultsGood inter-rater concordance across readers was noted for both PET/CT (Finn's coefficient of reliability for overall scan certainty: 0.85,p < 0.01) and combined DxCT-PET/CT (0.59,p < 0.01). Overall certainty and concordance between PET/CT and combined DxCT-PET/CT datasets were similar (overall scan certainty: 92% ± 16 vs. 92% ± 17,p = 0.43), with no significant advantage for adding DxCT across different anatomic locations or clinical parameters. A slight predilection for combined DxCT-PET/CT was noted when interpreting images acquired for the initial staging of prostate cancer (89% ± 16 vs. 93% ± 17,p = 0.08).
conclusionGood inter-reader concordance can be achieved across different training levels with PSMA-PET/CT. Furthermore, using DxCT concurrent with PSMA-PET/CT does not significantly improve diagnostic certainty for most indications but may be useful for initial staging.
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.