ArticleJournal of translational medicine2026
Head-to-head comparison between
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to perform a head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic efficacy between fluorine-18 prostate-specific membrane antigen-1007 (18F-PSMA-1007) and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in detecting recurrent and metastatic lesions in patients with prostate cancer (PCa).
methodsThis retrospective study included 87 patients with recurrent and metastatic who underwent both 18F-FDG and 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT within 14 days. The site-specific detection rates and patient-based diagnostic efficacy were compared. The semiquantitative parameters (SUVmax and lesion-to-background ratios) were analyzed. Correlations between serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and SUVmax, SUVmean, metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were assessed. The influence of PSA levels on diagnostic performance was also evaluated.
resultsThe overall detection rate of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT was significantly higher than that of 18F-FDG PET/CT [83.9% vs. 51.7%, P < 0.001]. 18F-PSMA-1007 demonstrated superior detection for prostate bed (34.5% vs. 9.2%, P < 0.001), bone metastases (66.7% vs. 32.2%, P < 0.001), and distant metastases (11.5% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.044), but not for nodal involvement (23.0% vs. 14.9%, P = 0.176). ¹⁸F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT had significantly higher sensitivity (90.74% vs. 57.41%), NPV (54.55% vs. 23.33%) and overall diagnostic accuracy (88.71% vs. 61.29%) than ¹⁸F-FDG; ¹⁸F-FDG had higher specificity (87.50% vs. 75.00%), with both tracers showing high PPV (98.87% and 96.08%, respectively). Among the 41 patients with concordantly positive lesions, 18F-PSMA-1007 exhibited significantly higher SUVmax, lesion-to-aorta ratio, and lesion-to-muscle ratio (all P < 0.05). 18F-PSMA-1007 showed superior detection performance in patients with PSA ≤ 2.0 ng/mL (73.47% vs. 38.78%, P < 0.001), with no significant difference in those with PSA > 2.0 ng/mL (84.21% vs. 68.42%, P = 0.105). MTV and TLG measured using 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT showed moderate correlation with PSA levels (r = 0.431, P = 0.005 and r = 0.469, P = 0.002, respectively).
conclusions18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT outperformed 18F-FDG PET/CT in diagnostic efficacy for detecting recurrent and metastatic PCa, with the greatest advantage observed in patients with low PSA levels (≤ 2.0 ng/mL).
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.