ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
Clinical performance of [
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose[99mTc]Tc-HYNIC-PSMA-XL-2 is a PSMA-targeted SPECT tracer with low urinary bladder activity. We assessed its real-world performance in paired head-to-head comparisons versus [99mTc]Tc-MDP and PSMA PET/CT.
methodsSingle-center retrospective study (Jan 1, 2020–Nov 25, 2025) using within-patient paired scans within 30 days. Subcohort A included [99mTc]Tc-HYNIC-PSMA-XL-2 SPECT/CT vs. [99mTc]Tc-MDP (n = 38). Subcohort B included [99mTc]Tc-HYNIC-PSMA-XL-2 SPECT/CT vs. PSMA PET/CT (either [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 or [18F]PSMA-1007; n = 13). Lesions were classified by a composite reference standard (Gold+/Gold−). Sensitivity/specificity/accuracy were compared with McNemar’s test; non-inferiority versus PET/CT used Δ = 10% (sensitivity and accuracy).
resultsIn Subcohort A, 76 bone lesions were evaluated (Gold + 60, Gold − 16). Sensitivity was high for both modalities (MDP 100.0% vs. [99mTc]Tc-HYNIC-PSMA-XL-2 98.3%; P = 1.000). [99mTc]Tc-HYNIC-PSMA-XL-2 showed higher specificity (100.0% vs. 18.8%; P < 0.001) and accuracy (98.7% vs. 82.9%; P < 0.001), with fewer false positives (FP 0 vs. 13). In Subcohort B, overall lesion sensitivity was comparable (93.1% vs. 96.6%; P = 1.000), and non-inferiority criteria were met (Δ = 10%); specificity estimates were limited by few Gold− lesions.
conclusion[99mTc]Tc-HYNIC-PSMA-XL-2 SPECT/CT reduces false-positive bone findings versus [99mTc]Tc-MDP and meets prespecified non-inferiority criteria versus PSMA PET/CT, supporting its potential as an accessible PSMA imaging option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41686218What 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.