The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study
Abstract
BACKGROUND Conventional imaging using CT and bone scan has insufficient sensitivity when staging men with high-risk localised prostate cancer. We aimed to investigate whether novel imaging using prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET-CT might improve accuracy and affect management. METHODS In this multicentre, two-arm, randomised study, we recruited men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer and high-risk features at ten hospitals in Australia. Patients were randomly assigned to conventional imaging with CT and bone scanning or gallium-68 PSMA-11 PET-CT. First-line imaging was done within 21 days following randomisation. Patients crossed over unless three or more distant metastases were identified. The primary outcome was accuracy of first-line imaging for identifying either pelvic nodal or distant-metastatic disease defined by the receiver-operating curve using a predefined reference-standard including histopathology, imaging, and biochemistry at 6-month follow-up. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ANZCTR12617000005358. FINDINGS From March 22, 2017 to Nov 02, 2018, 339 men were assessed for eligibility and 302 men were randomly assigned. 152 (50%) men were randomly assigned to conventional imaging and 150 (50%) to PSMA PET-CT. Of 295 (98%) men with follow-up, 87 (30%) had pelvic nodal or distant metastatic disease. PSMA PET-CT had a 27% (95% CI 23-31) greater accuracy than that of conventional imaging (92% [88-95] vs 65% [60-69]; p<0·0001). We found a lower sensitivity (38% [24-52] vs 85% [74-96]) and specificity (91% [85-97] vs 98% [95-100]) for conventional imaging compared with PSMA PET-CT. Subgroup analyses also showed the superiority of PSMA PET-CT (area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve 91% vs 59% [32% absolute difference; 28-35] for patients with pelvic nodal metastases, and 95% vs 74% [22% absolute difference; 18-26] for patients with distant metastases). First-line conventional imaging conferred management change less frequently (23 [15%] men [10-22] vs 41 [28%] men [21-36]; p=0·008) and had more equivocal findings (23% [17-31] vs 7% [4-13]) than PSMA PET-CT did. Radiation exposure was 10·9 mSv (95% CI 9·8-12·0) higher for conventional imaging than for PSMA PET-CT (19·2 mSv vs 8·4 mSv; p<0·001). We found high reporter agreement for PSMA PET-CT (κ=0·87 for nodal and κ=0·88 for distant metastases). In patients who underwent second-line image, management change occurred in seven (5%) of 136 patients following conventional imaging, and in 39 (27%) of 146 following PSMA PET-CT. INTERPRETATION PSMA PET-CT is a suitable replacement for conventional imaging, providing superior accuracy, to the combined findings of CT and bone scanning. FUNDING Movember and Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia. VIDEO ABSTRACT.
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
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-citationGafita, A., Calais, J., Grogan, T. R., Hadaschik, B., Wang, H., Weber, M., Sandhu, S., Kratochwil, C., Esfandiari, R., Tauber, R., et al. (2021) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(21)00274-6 · Cited by 271
Self-citationBiological 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
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-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hofman, M. S., Lawrentschuk, N., Francis, R. J., Tang, C., Vela, I., Thomas, P., Rutherford, N., Martin, J. M., Frydenberg, M., Shakher, R., Wong, L.-M., Taubman, K., Ting Lee, S., Hsiao, E., Roach, P., Nottage, M., Kirkwood, I., Hayne, D., Link, E., Marusic, P., Matera, A., Herschtal, A., Iravani, A., Hicks, R. J., Williams, S., & Murphy, D. G.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 395
- Issue
- 10231
- Pages
- 1208-1216
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W3012827461
- Cited by
- 2,040
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 134.10
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30314-7
- The paper
- Hofman, M. S., Lawrentschuk, N., Francis, R. J., Tang, C., Vela, I., Thomas, P., Rutherford, N., Martin, J. M., Frydenberg, M., Shakher, R., Wong, L.-M., Taubman, K., Ting Lee, S., Hsiao, E., Roach, P., Nottage, M., Kirkwood, I., Hayne, D., Link, E., . . . Murphy, D. G. (2020). Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30314-7
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.