MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008661915 · doi:10.1200/jco.2020.38.6_suppl.9

A prospective phase II/III multicenter study of PSMA-targeted 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT imaging in patients with prostate cancer (OSPREY): A sub-analysis of regional and distant metastases detection rates at initial staging by 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT.

2020· article· en· W3008661915 on OpenAlexaff
Frédéric Pouliot, Peter R. Carroll, Stephan Probst, Kenneth J. Pienta, Steven P. Rowe, Lawrence Saperstein, Barry A. Siegel, Akash Patnaik, Mark A. Preston, Ajjai Alva, Michael A. Gorin, Michael J. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalUniversité Laval
FundersProgenics Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerOccultNuclear medicineProstatectomyRadiologyPelvisCancerPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9 Background: Current imaging modalities are suboptimal for the initial staging of men at risk of harboring occult metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). PSMA-based imaging is considered highly promising for PCa detection. 18F-DCFPyL is a novel PSMA-targeted radiopharmaceutical for positron emission tomography (PET) that may be useful in staging of pts with high risk PCa. The diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFPyL regarding regional and distant metastases has been previously reported. Here we report on detection rates and the resulting impact 18F-DCFPyL may have on staging of pts with high risk PCa. Methods: 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT was evaluated in 252 men with high-risk PCa who were planned for radical prostatectomy with lymphadenectomy (RP-PLND). 9 mCi (333 MBq) of 18F-DCFPyL was administered 1-2 hours prior to PET/CT. Based on TNM staging, 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT detection rates including lesion counts were systematically analyzed: prostatic (T), pelvic LN (N), extra-pelvic LN (M1a), bone (M1b) & other visceral organs/soft tissue (M1c). Three central, blinded, and independent readers evaluated the 18F-DCFPyL scans. Results: At study entry, 97% and 99% of all evaluable pts had no known nodal or metastatic disease, respectively, based on standard cross-sectional imaging. Of these, 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT staged 37 (14.7%) pts with N1 disease and 27 (10.7%) pts with M1 disease (1 [0.4%] M1a, 23 [9.1%] M1b, and 3 [1.2%] M1c). In total, 56 (22%) of patients were upstaged to N1 or M1 disease by 18F-DCFPyL. The positive predictive value of 18F-DCFPyL based on histopathologic validation for pelvic LNs was 86.7% (95% CI: 70, 95). Only one patient in Cohort A underwent a biopsy of their 18F-DCFPyL detected M1 finding; histopathology confirmed the metastatic lesion in the spine to be a true positive. Conclusions: A total of 22% of pts with high-risk PCa planned for RP-PLND had regional or distant metastatic lesions detected on 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT. These results suggest the potential utility of 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT in the staging of men with newly diagnosed high risk PCa to develop optimized treatment paradigms. Clinical trial information: NCT02981368.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207