ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2026
Predicting side-specific extraprostatic extension in prostate cancer using an 18F-DCFPyL PSMA-PET/CT-based nomogram.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2026. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtraprostatic extension (EPE) in prostate cancer (PCa) has implications for nerve-sparing approaches. mpMRI-based nomograms show modest accuracy, highlighting the need for improved predictive models. This study evaluates
methodsThis single-center cohort study included patients undergoing RALP by a single surgeon (AKT) from January 2022 to September 2024. Baseline variables included demographics, PSA, biopsy, MRI, and PSMA parameters (SUVmax, EPE, SVI). The primary endpoint was side-specific EPE on final pathology. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression identified significant predictors. A nomogram was built based on this. To evaluate model performance, a 1000-iteration bootstrap approach was used to compare (1) the institutional MRI-only 2018 model, (2) an MRI + PSMA Fixed Model, and (3) a retrained MRI + PSMA Model built on each bootstrap sample.
resultsThree hundred fifty-five patients were analyzed. EPE was detected in 18.9% by MRI and 5.4% by PSMA PET. Median intraprostatic SUVmax was 11.30. EPE-positive sides were more likely to have MRI/PSMA-detected EPE (p < 0.001), PIRADS 5 lesions (p < 0.001), aggressive biopsy GGG (p < 0.001), higher positive cores (p < 0.001), and greater percent tumor involvement (p < 0.001). Median SUVmax was significantly higher in the EPE group (9.1 vs. 5.4; p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis identified PSA, MRI-detected EPE, GGG, tumor involvement percentage, and SUVmax ≥13 as significant predictors. The PSMA + MRI Fixed Model outperformed the MRI-only model (median AUC: 0.7542 vs. 0.7350) with p < 0.001. Calibration plots showed strong agreement between predicted and observed probabilities, and decision curve analysis demonstrated greater net clinical benefit across relevant thresholds.
conclusionWe developed a nomogram integrating PSMA PET with MRI and clinicopathological variables, outperforming our institutional model. PSMA uptake strongly predicts side-specific EPE, which can enhance preoperative assessment and improve postoperative functional outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40702303What 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.