Association of PSMA PET-derived Parameters and Outcomes of Patients Treated for Oligorecurrent Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET is useful in the early detection of oligorecurrent prostate cancer (PCa), but whether PSMA PET parameters can be used to identify patients who would benefit from metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) with radiation or surgery remains uncertain. Purpose To assess the association of PSMA PET parameters with outcomes of patients with oligorecurrent PCa after MDT. Materials and Methods In this retrospective analysis of a single-center phase II trial that enrolled patients with biochemical recurrence of PCa after maximal local therapy and with no evidence of disease at conventional imaging, patients underwent PSMA PET (between May 2017 and November 2021), and unveiled recurrences were treated with MDT. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean) and PSMA tumor volume derived using thresholds of 2.5 (SUVmean2.5) and 41% (SUVmean41%), respectively, were recorded for sites of recurrence on PSMA PET scans, and a molecular imaging PSMA score was assigned. These parameters were also corrected for smooth filter and partial volume effects, and the PSMA score was reassigned. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the relationship between PSMA PET parameters and outcomes. Results A total of 74 men (mean age, 68.3 years ± 6.6 [SD]) with biochemical recurrence of PCa were included. PSMA PET revealed 145 lesions in the entire cohort, of which 125 (86%) were metastatic lymph nodes. Application of the correction factor changed the PSMA score in 88 of 145 lesions (61%). Mean SUVmax, SUVmean2.5, and SUVmean41% were associated with lower risk of biochemical progression (hazard ratio [HR] range, 0.77–0.95; 95% CI: 0.61, 1.00; P = .03 to P = .04). For corrected parameters, mean SUVmax, mean SUVmean2.5, mean SUVmean41%, mean PSMA score, maximum SUVmean2.5, maximum SUVmean41%, and maximum PSMA score were associated with a lower risk of biochemical progression (HR, 0.61–0.98; 95% CI: 0.39, 1.00; P = .01 to P = .04). Conclusion Measured and corrected PSMA PET parameters were associated with biochemical progression in men with oligorecurrent PCa treated with MDT. Clinical trial registration no. NCT03160794 © RSNA, 2023 See also the editorial by Civelek in this issue.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".