Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40237795›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025

Homologous recombination repair gene alteration is strongly associated with more prostate-specific membrane antigen-positive metastases in newly diagnosed hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with ≤5 conventional imaging defined distant metastases.

Jian Pan, Bin Zhu, Junlong Wu, Xudong Ni, Xiaomeng Li, Shengming Jin, Weiwei Ma, Xiaohang Liu, Xiaoxin Hu, Hualei Gan and 7 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

17 authors.

Jian Pan *Department of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Bin Zhu *Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Junlong Wu *Department of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Xudong Ni *Department of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Xiaomeng Li *Department of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Shengming JinDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Weiwei Ma *Department of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Xiaohang LiuDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xiaoxin HuDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Hualei GanDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Hongkai WangDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Beihe WangDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China.
Qing ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center, Fudan University Cancer Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Shaoli SongDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. shaoli-song@163.com.
Chang LiuDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. lcggtt@163.com.
Dingwei YeDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. dwye.shca@gmail.com.
Yao ZhuDepartment of Urology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, No. 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. zhuyao@fudan.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-7950-6669

Funding

Chinese Urological Cancer Grant 011National Natural Science Foundation of China 82172621National Natural Science Foundation of China 82203106National Natural Science Foundation of China 82303748National Natural Science Foundation of China 82473381Shanghai Academic/Technology Research Leader 23XD1420600Shanghai Medical Innovation Research Special Project 21Y11904300Shanghai Rising Star Program 'Sailing' Project 22YF1408500Shanghai Shenkang Research Physician Innovation and Transformation Ability Training Project SHDC2022CRD035the Clinical Research Plan of SHDC SHDC-2020CR2016Bthe Shanghai Anti-Cancer Association Eyas Project SACA-CY22A04
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe differences in imaging between prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and conventional imaging (CI) significantly impact disease staging, subsequently influencing the scope and clinical efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). In this multicenter retrospective study, we aimed to explore the effect of homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene status on the imaging differences between PSMA PET/CT and CI, which may have important implications for treatment selection. PATIENTS AND

methodsA total of 1214 newly diagnosed hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) patients with ≤ 5 CI-defined distant metastatic lesions were included. All patients underwent PSMA PET/CT, CI, and circulating tumor DNA testing for 19 HRR genes. The PSA response was defined as achieving a PSA level of < 0.1 ng/ml after 6 months.

resultsThe median PSA level was 22.7 ng/ml. In the comparison of bone metastasis detection rates, the proportion of patients with higher detection rates on PSMA PET/CT than on CI was similar between BRCA mutation carriers and those with other HRR gene mutations (43.6% vs. 39.3%, p = 0.554), yet significantly higher in both groups compared to non-mutation carriers (20.5%, p = 0.00001). Similar results were observed in the analysis of metastasis detection rates for distant lymph nodes and regional lymph nodes. In non-metastatic HSPC patients without PSMA-positive distant disease who accepted radical prostatectomy (RP), patients without HRR gene mutations exhibited a significantly higher PSA response rate compared to HRR gene mutated patients (96.9% vs. 90.2%, p = 0.003).

conclusionsHRR gene alterations were significantly associated with a higher number of PSMA-positive metastases in newly diagnosed HSPC with ≤ 5 CI-defined distant metastases and worse outcomes in non-metastatic HSPC accepting RP. This finding suggests that HRR gene status should be considered as a potential indicator for recommending PSMA PET/CT in the design of clinical trials involving SBRT and in shaping imaging strategies.

Indexed as

Antigens, SurfaceGlutamate Carboxypeptidase IIProstatic NeoplasmsRecombinational DNA RepairAgedAged, 80 and overHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRetrospective StudiesAntigens, SurfaceFOLH1 protein, humanGlutamate Carboxypeptidase IIconventional imagingHRRHSPColigometastasesPSMA PET/CT

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.