SynthesisBMC cancer2026
Comparative diagnostic accuracy of PSMA-PET versus conventional imaging for Initial T/N/M staging of intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer: a patient-level paired bivariate meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the patient-level diagnostic accuracy of PSMA-PET with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), computed tomography (CT), and bone scintigraphy (BS) for initial T, N, and M staging of newly diagnosed intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer using paired studies.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to December 1, 2025, for paired studies in which the same patients underwent PSMA-PET and conventional imaging, with histopathology or predefined composite criteria as the reference standard. Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. Pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using bivariate composite-likelihood models. Modality effects were tested by meta-regression and likelihood ratio tests, and absolute between-modality differences with 95% CIs were estimated using the delta method.
resultsForty-three studies including 4,023 patients were analyzed. For local T staging, PSMA-PET did not show uniform superiority over mpMRI. For extraprostatic extension, PSMA-PET/CT did not differ significantly from mpMRI in sensitivity (absolute difference, -7.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -16.1 to 0.9; p = 0.08) or specificity (-7.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -14.7 to 0.8; p = 0.08); no significant differences were observed for seminal vesicle invasion. In an exploratory six-study comparison, PSMA-PET/MRI had higher sensitivity than mpMRI for extraprostatic extension (+ 12.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.9 to 22.2; p = 0.02). For regional lymph node staging, PSMA-PET/CT sensitivity was 69.3% (95% CI, 56.6-79.7) versus 45.3% (95% CI, 33.0-58.3) for mpMRI (difference, + 24.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 6.0-40.3; p = 0.009), whereas specificity did not differ (difference, + 3.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.6 to 11.8; p = 0.41). For bone metastasis staging, PSMA-PET had greater sensitivity than BS (95.8% [95% CI, 92.8-98.7] versus 76.2% [95% CI, 68.7-83.8]) and greater specificity (92.8% [95% CI, 89.9-95.7] versus 77.4% [95% CI, 71.3-83.5]; both p < 0.001).
conclusionsPSMA-PET/CT was more sensitive than mpMRI for regional lymph node staging, while specificity was comparable. PSMA-PET had greater sensitivity and specificity than bone scintigraphy for bone metastasis staging. For local T staging, PSMA-PET did not show uniform superiority over mpMRI.
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.