Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40256661›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2025

How Does Routine Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Modify the Current Management of Prostate Cancer? A Multidisciplinary View.

Daniela E Oprea-Lager, Tessa van Elst, Shafak Aluwini, Els Dewulf, Henk van der Poel, Herman Stoevelaar, Chris H Bangma, Aart Beeker, Steve Boudewijns, Tom Budiharto and 33 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

43 authors.

Daniela E Oprea-LagerDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tessa van ElstDepartment of Urology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Shafak AluwiniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Els DewulfCentre for Decision Analysis & Support, Ismar Healthcare NV, Lier, Belgium.
Henk van der PoelDepartment of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Herman StoevelaarCentre for Decision Analysis & Support, Ismar Healthcare NV, Lier, Belgium.
Chris H BangmaDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Aart BeekerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands.
Steve BoudewijnsDepartment of Medical Oncology, Bravis Hospital Roosendaal, Roosendaal, The Netherlands.
Tom BudihartoDepartment of Radiotherapy, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Igle-Jan de JongDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Kim C de VriesDepartment of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Maarten L DonswijkDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jurgen J FüttererDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Paul HambergDepartment of Medical Oncology, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Rotterdam & Schiedam, The Netherlands.
Linda HeijmenDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Robert J HoekstraDepartment of Urology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Thomas M A KerkhofsDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jules LavalayeDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Sint Antonius Hospital, Utrecht & Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Daphne Luijendijk-de BruinDepartment of Urology, Martini Hospital, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Walter NoordzijDepartment of Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging, Medical Imaging Center Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Irma M OvingDepartment of Internal Medicine, Ziekenhuis Groep Twente, Almelo, The Netherlands.
Debbie G J RobbrechtDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Eva E SchaakeDepartment of Radiotherapy, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Addy C M van de LuijtgaardenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Reinier Haga Prostate Cancer Centre, Delft, The Netherlands.
Roderick C N van den BerghDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Franchette van den BerkmortelDepartment of Internal Medicine-Medical Oncology, Zuyderland MC, Sittard, The Netherlands.
Tom van der HulleDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Johannes C K van der MijnDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joyce M van Dodewaard-de JongDepartment of Internal Medicine, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Michel van KruchtenDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Pim J van LeeuwenDepartment of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Evert van LimbergenDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
R Jeroen A van MoorselaarDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Inge M van OortDepartment of Urology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Joep G H van RoermundDepartment of Urology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Robert J van SoestDepartment of Urology, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Rotterdam & Schiedam, The Netherlands.
Theo VeningaDepartment of Radiotherapy, Institute Verbeeten, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
André N VisDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jens VoortmanDepartment of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter-Paul M WillemseDepartment of Urology, Cancer Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Derya YakarDepartment of Radiology, Medical Imaging Center Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Niven MehraDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) and new treatment modalities have expanded the possibilities for diagnosing and managing metastatic prostate cancer, but have also raised questions about their implementation in daily clinical practice. We sought consensus on definitions, preferred imaging modality for staging, and treatment selection in the era of next-generation imaging. Methods: A modified Delphi method involved two voting rounds and a face-to-face multidisciplinary meeting with 40 Dutch prostate cancer (PCa) experts. Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND Corporation/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method. Key findings and limitations: There was consensus on performing metastatic screening with PSMA-PET/CT for unfavourable intermediate- or high-risk PCa. PSMA-PET/CT findings were considered feasible for determining treatment in synchronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but there was no agreement on the validity of the CHAARTED criteria for interpreting the PSMA-PET/CT findings. If the PSMA-PET/CT findings led to upstaging after conventional imaging, 76% of panellists would opt for treatment intensification. In case of downstaging, 71% would choose for deintensification. Panellists would generally treat patients based on metastatic disease volume as per the CHAARTED criteria, except for bulky low-volume disease (LVD) and LVD with multiple (more than ten) bone metastases, all within the axial skeleton. This would be classified as LVD but treated as high-volume disease. Limitations are that the statements are largely consensus based and originate from a national (Dutch) perspective. Conclusions and clinical implications: PSMA-PET/CT was considered the preferred modality for initial PCa staging, which is nowadays the standard of care in The Netherlands. The majority of panellists would incorporate PSMA-PET/CT findings for treatment planning, including intensification and deintensification, but the criteria for interpreting metastatic disease volume on PSMA-PET/CT are still uncertain. Patient summary: A group of Dutch medical specialists discussed on how to diagnose metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and choose the most appropriate treatment for patients with this condition. It was concluded that imaging based on Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) helps determine appropriate treatment options, with most experts supporting treatment adjustments based on PSMA-PET/computed tomography (CT) results. However, there is still some uncertainty about the criteria for interpreting the extent of metastatic disease with PSMA-PET/CT.

Indexed as

Metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancerMolecular hybrid imagingProstate cancerProstate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computed tomographySystemic therapy

Identifiers

PMID40256661
PMCPMC12008539

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.