ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025
Using a novel PSMA-PET and PSA-based model to enhance the diagnostic accuracy for clinically significant prostate cancer and avoid unnecessary biopsy in men with PI-RADS ≤ 3 MRI.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The value of [Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Global research landscape of PSMA-targeted radiopharmaceuticals: a two-decade multidimensional bibliometric analysis.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- PSA proportion of index lesion: a novel index for predicting prostate pathology outcomes in biopsy-naïve patients with PSA < 10 ng/ml and PI-RADS 3 lesions.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Prostate Cancer.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Evaluating prostate cancer diagnostic methods: The role and relevance of digital rectal examination in modern era.Investigative and clinical urology · 2025Review
- Performance of PRIMARY Score based on PSMA-PET imaging in suspected prostate cancer patients with different PSA ranges: a retrospective study.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe diagnostic evaluation of men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) yet inconclusive MRI (PI-RADS ≤ 3) presents a common clinical challenge. [ MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study retrospective included 151 men with clinical suspicion of PCa and PI-RADS ≤ 3 MRI. All men underwent [
resultsIn this PI-RADS ≤ 3 cohort, areas-under-the-curve (AUCs) for detecting csPCa were 0.796 (95%CI, 0.738-0.853), 0.851 (95%CI, 0.783-0.918) and 0.806 (95%CI, 0.742-0.870) for PRIMARY-score, SUVmax and routine clinical PSMA-PET assessment, respectively. The diagnostic model comprising PRIMARY-score, SUVmax and serum free PSA/total PSA (fPSA/tPSA) achieved a significantly higher AUC of 0.906 (95%CI, 0.851-0.961) compared to strategies based on PRIMARY-score or SUVmax (P < 0.05) and markedly superior to conventional strategies typically based on PSA density (P < 0.001). The average fivefold cross-validated AUC with 1000 iterations was 0.878 (95%CI, 0.820-0.954). Theoretically, using a threshold of 21.6%, the model could have prevented 78% of unnecessary biopsies while missing only 7.8% of csPCa cases in this cohort.
conclusionsA novel diagnostic model incorporating PSMA-PET derived metrics-PRIMARY-score and SUVmax-along with serum fPSA/tPSA, has been developed and validated. The integrated model may assist clinical decision-making with enhanced diagnostic accuracy over the individual conventional metrics. It has great potential to reduce unnecessary biopsies for men with PI-RADS ≤ 3 MRI results and warrants further prospective and external evaluations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39404788What 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.