The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gallium-68 Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Advanced Prostate Cancer—Updated Diagnostic Utility, Sensitivity, Specificity, and Distribution of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen-avid Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Abstract
CONTEXT Accurate staging of high-risk localised, advanced, and metastatic prostate cancer is becoming increasingly more important in guiding local and systemic treatment. Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) has increasingly been utilised globally to assess the local and metastatic burden of prostate cancer, typically in biochemically recurrent or advanced disease. Following our previous meta-analysis, a high-volume series has been reported highlighting the utility of 68Ga-PSMA PET in this setting. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to update reported predictors of positive 68Ga-PSMA PET according to prior therapy and proportion of positivity in various anatomical locations with sensitivity and specificity profiles. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We performed critical reviews of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Libraries, and Web of Science databases in July 2018 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Quality assessment was performed using Quality Assessment if Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Meta-analyses of proportions were performed using a random-effect model. Summary sensitivity and specificity values were obtained by fitting bivariate hierarchical regression models. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A total of 37 articles including 4790 patients were analysed. For patients with biochemical recurrence, positive 68Ga-PSMA PET scans increased with higher pre-PET prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. For PSA categories 0-0.19, 0.2-0.49, 0.5-0.99, 1-1.99, and ≥2ng/ml, the percentages of positive scans were 33%, 45%, 59%, 75%, and 95%, respectively. No significant differences in positivity were noted between Gleason sums ≤7 and ≥8. Significant differences in positivity after biochemical recurrence in the prostate bed were noted between radical prostatectomy (22%) and radiotherapy (52%) patients. On per-node analysis, high sensitivity (75%) and specificity (99%) were observed. CONCLUSIONS Ga-68-PSMA PET improves detection of metastases with biochemical recurrence, particularly at low pre-PET PSA levels of >0.2ng/ml (33%) and 0.2-0.5ng/ml (45%). Ga-68-PSMA-PET produces favourable sensitivity and specificity profiles on meta-analysis of pooled data. This analysis highlights different anatomic patterns of metastatic spread according to PSMA PET in the primary and biochemically recurrent settings. PATIENT SUMMARY Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography is now an established imaging technique that has been developed in response to inadequacies in standard of care imaging modalities to improve the detection of metastatic disease in prostate cancer, particularly in the setting of disease recurrence. To date, this imaging modality in the setting of primary staging is controversial, given the paucity of data. In light of the growing body of evidence, we summarised the data to date to provide clinicians with an overview of this imaging modality.
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
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data
Nyaga, V. N., Arbyn, M., & Aerts, M. (2014) · Archives of Public Health · doi:10.1186/2049-3258-72-39 · Cited by 2,139
Cited by
Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Parker, C., Castro, E., Fizazi, K., Heidenreich, A., Ost, P., Procopio, G., Tombal, B., & Gillessen, S. (2020) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.011 · Cited by 977
E-PSMA: the EANM standardized reporting guidelines v1.0 for PSMA-PET
Ceci, F., Oprea-Lager, D. E., Emmett, L., Adam, J. A., Bomanji, J., Czernin, J., Eiber, M., Haberkorn, U., Hofman, M. S., Hope, T. A., et al. (2021) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-021-05245-y · Cited by 368
Self-citationViolet, J., Sandhu, S., Iravani, A., Ferdinandus, J., Thang, S.-P., Kong, G., Kumar, A. R., Akhurst, T., Pattison, D., Beaulieu, A., et al. (2020) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.119.236414 · Cited by 292
Self-citationNonprostatic diseases on PSMA PET imaging: a spectrum of benign and malignant findings
de Galiza Barbosa, F., Queiroz, M. A., Nunes, R. F., Costa, L. B., Zaniboni, E. C., Marin, J. F. G., Cerri, G. G., & Buchpiguel, C. A. (2020) · Cancer Imaging · doi:10.1186/s40644-020-00300-7 · Cited by 288
Biological determinants of PSMA expression, regulation and heterogeneity in prostate cancer
Bakht, M. K., & Beltran, H. (2025) · Nature Reviews Urology · doi:10.1038/s41585-024-00900-z · Cited by 158
Metadata
- Authors
- Perera, M., Papa, N., Roberts, M., Williams, M., Udovicich, C., Vela, I., Christidis, D., Bolton, D., Hofman, M. S., Lawrentschuk, N., & Murphy, D. G.
- Venue
- European Urology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 403-417
- ISSN
- 0302-2838 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2913023403
- Cited by
- 958
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 29.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.