Impact of 18F-DCFPyL PET/MRI in Selecting Men With Low-/Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer for Focal Ablative Therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of multiparametric (mp) MRI to 18F-DCFPyL PET/MRI for detecting clinically significant (cs) prostate cancer (PCa) in men with low-/intermediate-risk PCa being considered for focal ablative therapy (FT), using 2 interpretation schemes, and to assess the rate of exclusion from FT for each modality. METHODS: This prospective study evaluated men with low- or intermediate-risk PCa, potential candidates for FT based on initial biopsy as per institutional protocol, who underwent 18F-DCFPyL PET/MRI. Each modality (mpMRI, PET/MRI using PROMISE classification [PET/MRI PROMISE], and PET/MRI considering any focal lesion on PET as positive [PETFL/MRI]) was assessed independently. All suspicious lesions underwent PET/MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsies. Diagnostic performances were calculated and compared using the exact binomial test on paired proportions. RESULTS: Thirty-four men (median age, 64 years; interquartile range, 60-70 years) were included. Overall, 40 of 67 lesions (60%) identified on mpMRI and/or PET/MRI were malignant, and 34 of 40 lesions (85%) were csPCa (≥6 mm ISUP [International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group] GG1 or ISUP-GG ≥2). On lesion-level analysis, for detecting csPCa, sensitivity appeared higher for PETFL/MRI than mpMRI and PET/MRI PROMISE (97% vs 76% and 79%, respectively [P = 0.02 and 0.03]), whereas specificity was lower (30% vs 85% and 88%, respectively [P < 0.001]). The calculated overall accuracy rates for PETFL/MRI, mpMRI, and PET/MRI PROMISE were 64%, 81%, and 84%, respectively. PETFL/MRI, mpMRI, and PET/MRI PROMISE excluded 10 of 34 (29%), 7 of 34 (21%), and 6 of 34 (18%) men from FT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 18F-DCFPyL PET/MRI excluded nearly 30% of patients with low-/intermediate-risk PCa from FT, with a potential role in decreasing selection failure. Compared with mpMRI, PET/MRI had a higher sensitivity for detecting csPCa in men who were candidates for FT.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03149861.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".