MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900624714 · doi:10.2967/jnumed.118.220103

Prospective, Multisite, International Comparison of <sup>18</sup>F-Fluoromethylcholine PET/CT, Multiparametric MRI, and <sup>68</sup>Ga-HBED-CC PSMA-11 PET/CT in Men with High-Risk Features and Biochemical Failure After Radical Prostatectomy: Clinical Performance and Patient Outcomes

2018· article· en· W2900624714 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Emmett, Ur Metser, Glenn Bauman, Rodney J. Hicks, Andrew Weickhardt, Ian D. Davis, Shonit Punwani, Gregory R. Pond, Sue Chua, Bao Ho, Edward W. Johnston, Frédéric Pouliot, Andrew M. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersCancer Research UKMovember FoundationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchSociety of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeProstate cancerNuclear medicineProstatectomyAndrogen deprivation therapyProspective cohort studyMagnetic resonance imagingProstate-specific antigenProstateUrologyRadiologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant proportion of men with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after radical prostatectomy (RP) fail prostate fossa (PF) salvage radiation treatment (SRT). This study was done to assess the ability of <sup>18</sup>F-fluoromethylcholine (<sup>18</sup>F-FCH) PET/CT (hereafter referred to as <sup>18</sup>F-FCH), <sup>68</sup>Ga-HBED-CC PSMA-11 PET/CT (hereafter referred to as PSMA), and pelvic multiparametric MRI (hereafter referred to as pelvic MRI) to identify men who will best benefit from SRT. <b>Methods:</b> Prospective, multisite imaging studies were carried out in men who had rising PSA levels after RP, high-risk features, and negative/equivocal conventional imaging results and who were being considered for SRT. <sup>18</sup>F-FCH (91/91), pelvic MRI (88/91), and PSMA (31/91) (Australia) were all performed within 2 wk. Imaging was interpreted by experienced local/central interpreters who were masked with regard to other imaging results, with consensus being reached for discordant interpretations. Expected management was documented before and after imaging, and data about all treatments and PSA levels were collected for 3 y. The treatment response to SRT was defined as a reduction in PSA levels of &gt;50% without androgen deprivation therapy. <b>Results:</b> The median Gleason score, PSA level at imaging, and PSA doubling time were 8, 0.42 (interquartile range, 0.29–0.93) ng/mL, and 5.0 (interquartile range, 3.3–7.6) months. Recurrent prostate cancer was detected in 28% (25/88) by pelvic MRI, 32% (29/91) by <sup>18</sup>F-FCH, and 42% (13/31) by PSMA. This recurrence was found within the PF in 21.5% (19/88), 13% (12/91), and 19% (6/31) and at sites outside the PF (extra-PF) in 8% (7/88), 19% (17/91), and 32% (10/31) by MRI, <sup>18</sup>F-FCH, and PSMA, respectively (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.004). A total of 94% (16/17) of extra-PF sites on <sup>18</sup>F-FCH were within the pelvic MRI field. Intrapelvic extra-PF disease was detected in 90% (9/10) by PSMA and in 31% (5/16) by MRI. <sup>18</sup>F-FCH changed management in 46% (42/91), and MRI changed management in 24% (21/88). PSMA provided additional management changes over <sup>18</sup>F-FCH in 23% (7/31). The treatment response to SRT was higher in men with negative results or disease confined to the PF than in men with extra-PF disease (<sup>18</sup>F-FCH 73% [32/44] versus 33% [3/9] [<i>P</i> &lt; 0.02], pelvic MRI 70% [32/46] versus 50% [2/4] [<i>P</i> was not significant], and PSMA 88% [7/8] versus 14% [1/7] [<i>P</i> &lt; 0.005]). Men with negative imaging results (MRI, <sup>18</sup>F-FCH, or PSMA) had high (78%) SRT response rates. <b>Conclusion:</b><sup>18</sup>F-FCH and PSMA had high detection rates for extra-PF disease in men with negative/equivocal conventional imaging results and rising PSA levels after RP. These findings affected management and treatment responses, suggesting an important role for PET in triaging men being considered for curative SRT.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MedicineSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207