MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of PSMA-targeted imaging with 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT on clinical management of patients (pts) with biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer (PCa): Results from a phase III, prospective, multicenter study (CONDOR).

2020· article· en· W3031458532 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Morris, Peter R. Carroll, Lawrence Saperstein, Frédéric Pouliot, David Josephson, Jeffrey Y.C. Wong, Austin R. Pantel, Steve Y. Cho, Kenneth L. Gage, Morand Piert, Andrei Iagaru, Janet H. Pollard, Vivien Wong, Jessica Donato Jensen, Nancy Stambler, Michael A. Gorin, Barry A. Siegel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointNuclear medicineProstate cancerOccultBone scintigraphyClinical trialRadiologyCancerInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5501 Background: Current imaging modalities are inadequate for localizing and characterizing occult disease in men with BCR PCa, particularly in pts with low PSAs (<2 ng/mL). There is a need for improved diagnostic imaging to better inform treatment planning. 18F-DCFPyL (PyL) is a novel PET imaging agent that binds selectively with high affinity to PSMA, which is overexpressed in PCa cells. Methods: Men ≥18 years- with rising PSA after definitive therapy and negative or equivocal standard of care imaging (e.g., CT/MRI, bone scintigraphy) were enrolled. A single 9 mCi (333 MBq) ± 20% dose of PyL was injected, followed by PET/CT 1-2 hours later. Primary endpoint was correct localization rate (CLR), defined as percentage of pts with a 1:1 correspondence between at least one lesion identified by PyL-PET/CT and the composite standard of truth: pathology, correlative imaging, or PSA response. The trial was successful if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (LLCI) for CLR exceeded 20% for two of three independent, blinded central PyL-PET/CT reviewers. The secondary endpoint, impact of PyL-PET/CT on clinical management of pts was based on the treating physician’s documented clinical plans before and after PyL-PET/CT. Results: 208 men (median PSA 0.8 [0.2 - 98.4] ng/mL) underwent PyL PET/CT. The study achieved its primary endpoint: CLR of 84.8% to 87.0% among the three PyL-PET/CT readers; the LLCI for CLR by all three reviewers was >77%. Here we report the clinical impact. Based on local radiology assessment, PSMA-avid lesion(s) were identified in 69.3% (142/208) of pts. 63.9% (131/205) had a change in intended management after PyL-PET/CT, of which 78.6% (103/131) were attributable to positive PyL finding(s) and 21.4% (28/131) to negative PyL scans. Changes included: salvage local therapy to systemic therapy (n=58); observation before initiating therapy (n=49); noncurative systemic therapy to salvage local therapy (n=43); and planned treatment to observation (n=9). PyL was well tolerated with one drug-related SAE (hypersensitivity) and the most common AE being headache (n=4; 1.9%). Conclusions: PSMA-targeted PyL-PET/CT detected and localized occult disease in most men with BCR presenting with negative or equivocal conventional imaging. PyL-PET/CT led to changed management plans in the majority of pts, thus providing evidence that clinicians find PSMA PET imaging useful in men with recurrent or suspected metastatic PCa. Clinical trial information: NCT03739684 .

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.403 · 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

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→