MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044746299 · doi:10.3390/jcm9072308

Diagnostic Performance of [18F]Fluorocholine and [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT in Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Study

2020· article· en· W3044746299 on OpenAlexaff
Zeinab Paymani, Taryn J. Rohringer, Reza Vali, Wolfgang Loidl, Nafiseh Alemohammad, Hans Geinitz, Werner Langsteger, Mohsen Beheshti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerCancerPET-CTProstateNuclear medicineOncologyPositron emission tomographyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study endeavored to closely compare the detection rate of 68-Gallium labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen ([68Ga]Ga-PSMA) versus [18F]Fluorocholine in men with prostate cancer (PC), to investigate the benefits and pitfalls of each modality in the setting of various patient characteristics. We retrospectively analyzed 29 biopsy-proven PC patients in two categories, staging and restaging, who underwent both scans within a maximum of 30 days of each other. Variables including patient demographics, prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, clinical course, and following treatments were recorded. The number and location of suspicious lesions as well as uptake values were noted. A total of 148 suspicious lesions were detected, of which 70.9% (105/148) were concordantly visualized in both imaging modalities. [68Ga]Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) revealed a higher number of metastatic lesions per patients (91% vs 78%). The mean of maximum standardized uptake value (SUV max) in concordant lesions was significantly higher in [68Ga]Ga-PSMA compared to [18F]Fluorocholine PET/CT (14.6 ± 8.44 vs. 6.9 ± 3.4, p = 0.001). Discordant lesions were detected by both modalities, but more frequently by [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT (20.3% in [68Ga]Ga-PSMA versus 8.8% by [18F]Fluorocholine PET/CT). In patients with PSA levels below 1.0 ng/mL and <2.0 ng/mL, [18F]Fluorocholine PET/CT detection rate was half (57% and 55%, respectively) that of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Tumor, nodes and metastases (TNM) staging, and subsequently patient management, was only influenced in 4/29 patients (14%), particularly by [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT with PSA values under 0.5 ng/mL. [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT revealed superior diagnostic performance to [18F]Fluorocholine PET/CT in staging and restaging of PC patients, especially in cases with low PSA levels. However, in a few hormone resistant high-risk PC patients, [18F]Fluorocholine PET/CT may improve overall diagnostic accuracy.

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)0.011
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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