Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41543807›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2026

Shiori Murata, Yusaku Moribata, Shusuke Akamatsu, Aki Kido, Yuki Himoto, Yasuhisa Kurata, Tomoaki Otani, Takayuki Sumiyoshi, Ryoichi Saito, Takashi Ogata and 6 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2026. 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. Review
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

16 authors.

Shiori Murata *Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Shogoin Kawahara-Cho, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5791-6624
Yusaku Moribata *Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Shusuke AkamatsuDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Shogoin Kawahara-Cho, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Aki KidoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Yuki HimotoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Yasuhisa KurataDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Tomoaki OtaniDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Takayuki SumiyoshiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Shogoin Kawahara-Cho, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Ryoichi SaitoDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Shogoin Kawahara-Cho, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Takashi OgataDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Rihito AizawaDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Kiyonao NakamuraDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Takashi MizowakiDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Yuji NakamotoDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Takashi KobayashiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Shogoin Kawahara-Cho, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Takayuki GotoDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Shogoin Kawahara-Cho, Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. goto@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of radiolabeled prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) with

methodsThis retrospective study used part of the dataset from a previous phase 2 study conducted between February 2019 and March 2022, which evaluated the detection efficacy of

resultsTotal 132 true-positive prostate cancer lesions were detected in 23 of 35 patients (66%). The sensitivity of PSMA-PET/CT (100%) was significantly higher than those of both WB-MRI (57%) and CT/BS (32%) in the per-patient analysis (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively). In the per-lesion analysis, the sensitivity of PSMA-PET/CT (88%) was significantly higher than those of WB-MRI (44%) and CT/BS (6%) (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively).

conclusions

Indexed as

Neoplasm Recurrence, LocalPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstatic NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overAntigens, SurfaceFluorine RadioisotopesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedProstate-Specific AntigenRadionuclide ImagingRadiopharmaceuticalsRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedAntigens, SurfaceFluorine RadioisotopesProstate-Specific AntigenRadiopharmaceuticals18F-FSU-880Prostate cancerPSMAWB-MRI

Identifiers

PMID41543807

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.