ArticleCancers2025
Interpretation of PSMA-PET Among Urologists: A Prospective Multicentric Evaluation.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET imaging has significantly improved prostate cancer (PCa) staging, yet its interpretation remains challenging, even for experienced specialists. No prior study has assessed urologists' ability to interpret PSMA-PET.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter prospective study involving 63 urologists from eight Italian institutions. Participants evaluated 20 PSMA-PET scans of high-risk PCa cases, with no clinical information provided. Proficiency was defined as correctly identifying at least two of three staging components (T, N, M) in ≥75% of cases. Associations between performance and factors such as hierarchy (resident vs. consultant), institution type, surgical volume, and multidisciplinary team (MDT) presence were analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression.
resultsOnly one participant achieved full staging proficiency, while 44% reached the ≥75% threshold for partial (almost correct) staging. Urologists from centers with ≥300 PCa diagnoses per year demonstrated better T and M stage identification. Institutions with ≥150 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies (RARPs) per year and those with MDTs showed higher accuracy in M staging. No significant predictors of proficiency emerged in the multivariable analysis, although hierarchy and surgical volume approached significance for nodal metastasis detection.
conclusionPSMA-PET interpretation is complex for urologists, with particular challenges in T and M staging. High institutional case volumes and MDT involvement may enhance interpretation skills. Structured training programs and increased exposure to multidisciplinary imaging discussions are essential to optimize urologists' diagnostic proficiency and ultimately improve patient care.
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.