MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282915663 · doi:10.1016/j.euo.2022.04.006

Diagnostic Performance of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography–targeted biopsy for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4282915663 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Oncology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerPositron emission tomographyMeta-analysisGlutamate carboxypeptidase IIConfidence intervalMagnetic resonance imagingProstateBiopsyProspective cohort studyNuclear medicineRadiologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) has gained acceptance as a staging tool for prostate cancer (PCa). Recent reports suggest an association between PSMA PET and detection of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) on prostate biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of PSMA PET-targeted biopsy (PSMA-PET-TB) for csPCa detection. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus in December 2021 to identify studies assessing the accuracy of PSMA-PET-TB for csPCa detection. A diagnostic meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of PSMA-PET-TB alone and in combination with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-TB for detecting csPCa. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, five prospective studies involving 497 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. For csPCa detection, PSMA-PET-TB had pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.93), 0.56 (95% CI 0.29-0.80), 0.69 (95% CI 0.58-0.79), and 0.78 (95% CI 0.50-0.93), respectively. Among the three studies assessing the PSMA-PET + MRI-TB strategy, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for csPCa detection were 0.91 (95% CI 0.77-0.97), 0.64 (95% CI 0.40-0.82), 0.75 (95% CI 0.56-0.87), and 0.85 (95% CI 0.62-0.95), respectively. For lesions with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 3, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 0.69, 0.73, 0.48, and 0.86, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PSMA-PET-TB appears to have favorable diagnostic accuracy for csPCa detection and combination with MRI seems to improve this. According to our meta-analysis, PSMA-PET has promising clinical application for detection of csPCa, namely in the case of PI-RADS 3 lesions. Further prospective studies are needed to explore the true clinical utility of a PSMA-PET-based diagnostic pathway. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) is a promising imaging method for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and seems to have additional value to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detection.

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.

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)0.004
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: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.295 · 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