Cited by 56Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and ApplicationsMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

False positive PSMA PET for tumor remnants in the irradiated prostate and other interpretation pitfalls in a prospective multi-center trial

Open access

Abstract

Purpose: Readers need to be informed about potential pitfalls of [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET interpretation. Methods: Here we report [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET findings discordant with the histopathology/composite reference standard in a recently published prospective trial on 635 patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Results: Consensus reads were false positive in 20 regions of 17/217 (8%) patients with lesion validation. Majority of the false positive interpretations (13 of 20, 65%) occurred in the context of suspected prostate (bed) relapse (T) after radiotherapy ( n = 11); other false positive findings were noted for prostate bed post prostatectomy (T, n = 2), pelvic nodes (N, n = 2), or extra pelvic lesions (M, n = 5). Major sources of false positive findings were PSMA-expressing residual adenocarcinoma with marked post-radiotherapy treatment effect. False negative interpretation occurred in 8 regions of 6/79 (8%) patients with histopathology validation, including prostate (bed) ( n = 5), pelvic nodes ( n = 1), and extra pelvic lesions ( n = 2). Lesions were missed mostly due to small metastases or adjacent bladder/urine uptake. Conclusion: [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET at biochemical recurrence resulted in less than 10% false positive interpretations. Post-radiotherapy prostate uptake was a major source of [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET false positivity. In few cases, PET correctly detects residual PSMA expression post-radiotherapy, originating however from treated, benign tissue or potentially indolent tumor remnants. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02940262 and NCT03353740.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00259-020-04945-1

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sources of false positive or negative findings still remain with higher-specificity tracers and must be considered during image interpretation.

    “However, sources of false positive or negative findings still remain with these tracers [131,132,133,134] and must be considered during image interpretation.”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [131]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fendler, W. P., Calais, J., Eiber, M., Simko, J. P., Kurhanewicz, J., Santos, R. D., Feng, F. Y., Reiter, R. E., Rettig, M. B., Nickols, N. G., Kishan, A. U., PSMA PET Reader Group, Shozo, O., Emmett, L., Zacho, H. D., Ilhan, H., Rischpler, C., Wetter, A., Schoder, H., Burger, I. A., Slavik, R., Carroll, P. R., Lawhn-Heath, C., Herrmann, K., Czernin, J., & Hope, T. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Aalborg University Hospital (DK)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Essen University Hospital (DE)
  • University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
Corresponding author
Fendler, Wolfgang P.
Venue
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published
2020-08-17
Volume
48
Issue
2
Pages
501-508
ISSN
  • 1619-7070 (ISSN-L)
  • 1619-7089
OpenAlex
W3050429624
Cited by
56
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Universitätsbibliographie, Universität Duisburg-Essen (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Universitätsklinikum Essen
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
false positives, biochemically recurrent prostate cancer, pelvic lymph node metastasis
MeSH terms
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Edetic Acid, Humans, Male, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Prospective Studies, Prostate, Prostatectomy, Prostatic Neoplasms

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