Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39300507›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2024

Early treatment response assessment with [

David Ventura, Philipp Rassek, Philipp Schindler, Burak Han Akkurt, Linus Bredensteiner, Martin Bögemann, Katrin Schlack, Robert Seifert, Michael Schäfers, Wolfgang Roll and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

David Ventura *Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany. david.ventura@ukmuenster.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4346-2606
Philipp Rassek *Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Philipp SchindlerWest German Cancer Center (WTZ), 48149, Münster site, Germany.
Burak Han AkkurtWest German Cancer Center (WTZ), 48149, Münster site, Germany.
Linus BredensteinerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Martin BögemannWest German Cancer Center (WTZ), 48149, Münster site, Germany.
Katrin SchlackWest German Cancer Center (WTZ), 48149, Münster site, Germany.
Robert SeifertDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Michael SchäfersDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Wolfgang Roll *Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Kambiz Rahbar *Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) is an essential tool for patient selection before radioligand therapy (RLT). Interim-staging with PSMA-PET during RLT allows for therapy monitoring. However, its added value over post-treatment imaging is poorly elucidated. The aim of this study was to compare early treatment response assessed by post-therapeutic whole-body scans (WBS) with interim-staging by PSMA-PET after 2 cycles in order to prognosticate OS.

methodsMen with metastasized castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) who had received at least two cycles of RLT, and interim PSMA-PET were evaluated retrospectively. PROMISE V2 framework was used to categorize PSMA expression and assess response to treatment. Response was defined as either disease control rate (DCR) for responders or progression for non-responders.

resultsA total of 188 men with mCRPC who underwent RLT between February 2015 and December 2021 were included. The comparison of different imaging modalities revealed a strong and significant correlation with Cramer V test: e.g. response on WBS during second cycle compared to interim PET after two cycles of RLT (c

conclusionResponse assessment of RLT by WBS and interim PET after two cycles of RLT have high congruence and can identify patients at risk of poor outcome. This indicates that interim PET might be omitted for response assessment, but future trials corroborating these findings are warranted.

Indexed as

Positron-Emission TomographyProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantWhole Body ImagingAgedAged, 80 and overAntigens, SurfaceGlutamate Carboxypeptidase IIHumansLutetiumMaleMiddle AgedRadioisotopesRadiopharmaceuticalsRetrospective StudiesAntigens, SurfaceFOLH1 protein, humanGlutamate Carboxypeptidase IILutetiumLutetium-177RadioisotopesRadiopharmaceuticals[177Lu]PSMAmCRPCPSMA-PETRadioligand therapyWBS

Identifiers

PMID39300507
PMCPMC11414098

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.