ArticleAmerican journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025
Results from a prospective registry of
Article in American 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
background
methodsProviders ordering FluPET for patients with PC were surveyed before, ≤2 weeks after, and ≥1 year after imaging to assess reasons for obtaining FluPET, projected treatment plan, changes in plan due to FluPET findings, and toxicity attributable to the change in treatment plan. Baseline patient characteristics, FluPET results, and longitudinal outcomes were collected.
resultsBetween 12/2018-09/2021, 62 patients with localized PC (8.1%), biochemical recurrence (BCR; 80.6%), non-metastatic castration-resistant PC (CRPC) (3.2%), metastatic castration-sensitive PC (3.2%), or metastatic CRPC (4.8%) were enrolled and underwent FluPET. Most scans (90.3%) were performed prior to the FDA approval of PSMA PET 12/2020. FluPET was most often obtained to guide local salvage or metastasis-directed therapies (90.3%); other reasons (non-exclusive) were initial staging (9.6%) or clarifying equivocal lesions from other imaging (9.6%). FluPET detected ≥1 PC lesion in 74.2% of patients. After FluPET, 48.4% of providers reported changing treatment plans, which was more likely when FluPET was positive (60.9% vs 12.5%, P<0.001), and often involved initiation of systemic therapy (19.4%). Treatment changes were reported in 57% of patients with BCR1 and 48.2% of patients with BCR2. In contrast, only 20% of patients with distant metastatic disease had a change in treatment. Among patients in the BCR1 and BCR2 cohort, treatment plan changes were associated with a median time to next treatment that was not reached after a median follow-up of 67.6 months. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) who did and did not have a treatment plan change. A year after FluPET, reported potential toxicities from treatment plan changes were minimal.
conclusionFluPET was utilized across the disease spectrum of PC, primarily to guide local salvage or metastasis-directed therapies, given its improved sensitivity for detecting prostate bed recurrence due to the slow physiologic excretion of
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.