18F-DCFPyL (PSMA) PET in the Management of Men with Biochemical Failure after Primary Therapy: Initial Clinical Experience of an Academic Cancer Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To describe the initial experience of an academic center using 18F-DCFPyL PET in managing men with recurrent prostate cancer. Materials & Methods: This prospective, single-arm IRB-approved study included men with biochemical failure after primary therapy for prostate cancer and negative/equivocal CT and bone scintigraphy who were candidates for salvage therapy, as determined by a multidisciplinary panel of experts. 18F-DCFPyL PET was assessed for the presence and extent of recurrence: local, oligometastatic (≤4), or extensive. Post-PET management and clinical outcome, including PSA response, was documented. For patients who received PET-directed ablative therapies, response was categorized as “complete” if PSA became undetectable or “favorable” if PSA decreased ≥50%. Results: Forty-seven men with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy (n = 29), primary radiotherapy (n = 15) or focal tumor ablation (n = 3) were included. PET was positive in (43/47) 91.5%, including local recurrence in (9/47) 19.2%; oligometastatic disease in (16/47) 34%; and extensive metastatic disease in (18/47) 38.3%. PET-directed focal ablative therapies without systemic therapy were given to (13/29) 44.8% of patients without extensive metastases on PET with a mean PSA response of 69% (median, 74.5%; range: 35–100). Favorable biochemical response was observed in (10/13) 76.9% of patients with limited recurrence on PET, and in 23.1% (3/13), there was complete response. Conclusion: 18F-DCFPyL PET was positive in >90% of patients with biochemical failure. For those with limited recurrence, PSMA PET-directed local ablative therapies resulted in favorable outcome in more than 3 in 4 patients, and in nearly a quarter of them, there was complete biochemical response.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".