MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406552462 · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2024.09.017

F18-DCFPyL PSMA-PET/CT Versus MRI: Identifying the Prostate Cancer Region Most at Risk of Radiation Therapy Recurrence for Tumor Dose Escalation

2025· article· en· W4406552462 on OpenAlexafffund
C. Belliveau, Mustafa-Karim Benhacene-Boudam, Daniel Juneau, Nicolas Plouznikoff, Damien Olivié, Stephanie Alley, Maroie Barkati, Guila Delouya, Daniel Taussky, Carole Lambert, Marie-Claude Beauchemin, Cynthia Ménard

Bibliographic record

VenuePractical Radiation Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerRadiation therapyOncologyMagnetic resonance imagingCancerRadiologyNuclear medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Local recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa) after radiation therapy (RT) typically occurs at the site of dominant tumor burden, and recent evidence confirms that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guided tumor dose escalation improves outcomes. With the emergence of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET), we hypothesize that PSMA-PET and MRI may not equally depict the region most at risk of recurrence after RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with intermediate- to high-risk PCa and MRI plus PSMA-PET performed before RT were identified. The sextant most at risk of recurrence was defined as the pathologically dominant region with peak biopsy percentage core length involvement and any sextant with ≥ 40% percentage core length involvement (pathologic gross tumor volume [pGTV], per prior work). Imaging methods were reviewed independently to compare GTVs with pGTVs most at risk of recurrence. A paired chi-square test was employed for analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients (n = 88) were identified. Overall, there were no differences in the sensitivity of MRI and PSMA-PET for identifying the pGTV most at risk of recurrence. However, PSMA-PET demonstrated a trend of improved sensitivity for high-risk PCa compared with MRI (n = 46, 96% vs 87%, P = .06), while MRI outperformed PSMA-PET for the intermediate-risk group (n = 42, 93% vs 81%, P = .03). PSMA-PET showed lower specificity, misidentifying GTV in uninvolved pathologic sextants for 12% of intermediate-risk patients, whereas MRI was faultless (12% vs 0%, P = .03). MRI and PSMA-PET each misidentified uninvolved sextants for 9% of patients in the high-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: MRI demonstrates superior sensitivity in identifying the region most at risk of RT recurrence for intermediate-risk PCa, whereas PSMA-PET may add value for some high-risk patients. Informed by sextant biopsy information and MRI, clinicians should consider integrating PSMA-PET for patients with high-risk diseases when delineating GTVs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.379 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePractical Radiation OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207