ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Standardizing PSMA PET/CT reporting in prostate cancer: from structured frameworks to AI-assisted interpretation.
Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PSMA PET/CT is increasingly used for prostate cancer staging, restaging, treatment selection, and therapy response assessment. In parallel, several interpretation frameworks have been developed to standardize reporting. PROMISE version 2 integrates the PRIMARY score for local disease, molecular imaging TNM staging, and a PSMA expression score. PSMA-RADS 2.0 supports lesion-level characterization, whereas response systems such as the PSMA PET progression criteria and RECIP 1.0 focus on treatment response assessment. Despite the availability of these systems and professional society guidance, real-world reporting remains heterogeneous, with limited framework adoption, inconsistent lesion documentation, variable handling of incidental findings, and suboptimal longitudinal comparison, all of which may complicate multidisciplinary communication and clinical decision-making. Emerging automation and artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools may help address some of these gaps by supporting lesion detection, quantification, longitudinal matching, and prepopulation of structured report elements; however, their current role is best regarded as physician-supervised decision support rather than autonomous interpretation. This article provides a pragmatic interpretation workflow for PSMA PET/CT readers. We propose a clinical question-driven approach to framework selection, a compartment-based search pattern, and a minimal synoptic reporting template. Targeted pearls and pitfalls emphasize common abdominopelvic mimics and tracer-dependent issues. We also address frequent interpretive challenges, including limited sensitivity for microscopic nodal disease, partial-volume effects in uptake assessment, the trade-off between comprehensive frameworks and real-world feasibility, and the evolving role of AI-assisted structured reporting. Take-home message: A practical reporting approach is to standardize the impression with PROMISE V2 staging, describe equivocal lesions using PSMA-RADS terminology, and incorporate these elements into a minimal synoptic template. Physician-supervised automation and AI-assisted tools may further support lesion detection, quantification, longitudinal matching, and structured-report prepopulation within this workflow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42319425What 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.