The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diagnostic Accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for Pelvic Nodal Metastasis Detection Prior to Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Multicenter Prospective Phase 3 Imaging Trial
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: The presence of pelvic nodal metastases at radical prostatectomy is associated with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) 68Ga-PSMA-11 positron emission tomographic (PET) imaging for the detection of pelvic nodal metastases compared with histopathology at time of radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This investigator-initiated prospective multicenter single-arm open-label phase 3 imaging trial of diagnostic efficacy enrolled 764 patients with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer considered for prostatectomy at University of California, San Francisco and University of California, Los Angeles from December 2015 to December 2019. Data analysis took place from October 2018 to July 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Imaging scan with 3 to 7 mCi of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the sensitivity and specificity for the detection pelvic lymph nodes compared with histopathology on a per-patient basis using nodal region correlation. Each scan was read centrally by 3 blinded independent central readers, and a majority rule was used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 764 men (median [interquartile range] age, 69 [63-73] years) underwent 1 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging scan for primary staging, and 277 of 764 (36%) subsequently underwent prostatectomy with lymph node dissection (efficacy analysis cohort). Based on pathology reports, 75 of 277 patients (27%) had pelvic nodal metastasis. Results of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET were positive in 40 of 277 (14%), 2 of 277 (1%), and 7 of 277 (3%) of patients for pelvic nodal, extrapelvic nodal, and bone metastatic disease. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for pelvic nodal metastases were 0.40 (95% CI, 0.34-0.46), 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.97), 0.75 (95% CI, 0.70-0.80), and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.85), respectively. Of the 764 patients, 487 (64%) did not undergo prostatectomy, of which 108 were lost to follow-up. Patients with follow-up instead underwent radiotherapy (262 of 379 [69%]), systemic therapy (82 of 379 [22%]), surveillance (16 of 379 [4%]), or other treatments (19 of 379 [5%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This phase 3 diagnostic efficacy trial found that in men with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection, the sensitivity and specificity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET were 0.40 and 0.95, respectively. This academic collaboration is the largest known to date and formed the foundation of a New Drug Application for 68Ga-PSMA-11. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03368547, NCT02611882, and NCT02919111.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529786 · Cited by 4,332
Hofman, M. S., Lawrentschuk, N., Francis, R. J., Tang, C., Vela, I., Thomas, P., Rutherford, N., Martin, J. M., Frydenberg, M., Shakher, R., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30314-7 · Cited by 2,040
Maurer, T., Gschwend, J. E., Rauscher, I., Souvatzoglou, M., Haller, B., Weirich, G., Wester, H.-J., Heck, M., Kübler, H., Beer, A. J., et al. (2016) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.025 · Cited by 779
Self-citationFendler, W. P., Calais, J., Eiber, M., Flavell, R. R., Mishoe, A., Feng, F. Y., Nguyen, H. G., Reiter, R. E., Rettig, M. B., Okamoto, S., et al. (2019) · JAMA Oncology · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0096 · Cited by 779
Self-citation68Ga-PSMA PET/CT: Joint EANM and SNMMI procedure guideline for prostate cancer imaging: version 1.0
Fendler, W. P., Eiber, M., Beheshti, M., Bomanji, J., Ceci, F., Cho, S., Giesel, F., Haberkorn, U., Hope, T. A., Kopka, K., et al. (2017) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3670-z · Cited by 750
Self-citationEiber, M., Herrmann, K., Calais, J., Hadaschik, B., Giesel, F. L., Hartenbach, M., Hope, T., Reiter, R., Maurer, T., Weber, W. A., et al. (2018) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.117.198119 · Cited by 626
Self-citationEvidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies
Rutjes, A. W. S., Reitsma, J. B., Di Nisio, M., Smidt, N., van Rijn, J. C., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2006) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.050090 · Cited by 611
Morigi, J. J., Stricker, P. D., van Leeuwen, P. J., Tang, R., Ho, B., Nguyen, Q., Hruby, G., Fogarty, G., Jagavkar, R., Kneebone, A., et al. (2015) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.160382 · Cited by 571
Bianco, F. J., Scardino, P. T., & Eastham, J. A. (2005) · Urology · doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.116 · Cited by 553
Calais, J., Ceci, F., Eiber, M., Hope, T. A., Hofman, M. S., Rischpler, C., Bach-Gansmo, T., Nanni, C., Savir-Baruch, B., Elashoff, D., et al. (2019) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30415-2 · Cited by 476
Self-citation
Cited by
Gillessen, S., Armstrong, A., Attard, G., Beer, T. M., Beltran, H., Bjartell, A., Bossi, A., Briganti, A., Bristow, R. G., Bulbul, M., et al. (2022) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2022.04.002 · Cited by 130
Self-citationRadiotheranostics in oncology: Making precision medicine possible
Aboagye, E. O., Barwick, T. D., & Haberkorn, U. (2023) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21768 · Cited by 131
Imaging and therapy in prostate cancer using prostate specific membrane antigen radioligands
Naik, M., Khan, S. R., Lewington, V., Challapalli, A., Eccles, A., & Barwick, T. D. (2024) · British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1093/bjr/tqae092 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Hope, T. A., Eiber, M., Armstrong, W. R., Juarez, R., Murthy, V., Lawhn-Heath, C., Behr, S. C., Zhang, L., Barbato, F., Ceci, F., Farolfi, A., Schwarzenböck, S. M., Unterrainer, M., Zacho, H. D., Nguyen, H. G., Cooperberg, M. R., Carroll, P. R., Reiter, R. E., Holden, S., Herrmann, K., Zhu, S., Fendler, W. P., Czernin, J., & Calais, J.
- Venue
- JAMA Oncology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2021-11-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1635
- ISSN
- 2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3200874340
- Cited by
- 357
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 32.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diagnostic Accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for Pelvic Nodal Metastasis Detection Prior to Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Multicenter Prospective Phase 3 Imaging Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.3771
- The paper
- Hope, T. A., Eiber, M., Armstrong, W. R., Juarez, R., Murthy, V., Lawhn-Heath, C., Behr, S. C., Zhang, L., Barbato, F., Ceci, F., Farolfi, A., Schwarzenböck, S. M., Unterrainer, M., Zacho, H. D., Nguyen, H. G., Cooperberg, M. R., Carroll, P. R., Reiter, R. E., Holden, S., . . . Calais, J. (2021). Diagnostic Accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for Pelvic Nodal Metastasis Detection Prior to Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Multicenter Prospective Phase 3 Imaging Trial. JAMA Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.3771
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.