The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of Hybrid 68Ga-PSMA Ligand PET/CT in 248 Patients with Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The expression of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is increased in prostate cancer. Recently, (68)Ga-PSMA (Glu-NH-CO-NH-Lys-(Ahx)-[(68)Ga(HBED-CC)]) was developed as a PSMA ligand. The aim of this study was to investigate the detection rate of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT in patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Two hundred forty-eight of 393 patients were evaluable for a retrospective analysis. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 1.99 ng/mL (range, 0.2-59.4 ng/mL). All patients underwent contrast-enhanced PET/CT after injection of 155 ± 27 MBq of (68)Ga-PSMA ligand. The detection rates were correlated with PSA level and PSA kinetics. The influence of antihormonal treatment, primary Gleason score, and contribution of PET and morphologic imaging to the final diagnosis were assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-two (89.5%) patients showed pathologic findings in (68)Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT. The detection rates were 96.8%, 93.0%, 72.7%, and 57.9% for PSA levels of ≥2, 1 to <2, 0.5 to <1, and 0.2 to <0.5 ng/mL, respectively. Whereas detection rates increased with a higher PSA velocity (81.8%, 82.4%, 92.1%, and 100% in <1, 1 to <2, 2 to <5, and ≥5 ng/mL/y, respectively), no significant association could be found for PSA doubling time (82.7%, 96.2%, and 90.7% in >6, 4-6, and <4 mo, respectively). (68)Ga-PSMA ligand PET (as compared with CT) exclusively provided pathologic findings in 81 (32.7%) patients. In 61 (24.6%) patients, it exclusively identified additional involved regions. In higher Gleason score (≤7 vs. ≥8), detection efficacy was significantly increased (P = 0.0190). No significant difference in detection efficacy was present regarding antiandrogen therapy (P = 0.0783). CONCLUSION: Hybrid (68)Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT shows substantially higher detection rates than reported for other imaging modalities. Most importantly, it reveals a high number of positive findings in the clinically important range of low PSA values (<0.5 ng/mL), which in many cases can substantially influence the further clinical management.
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
Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer
Harisinghani, M. G., Barentsz, J., Hahn, P. F., Deserno, W. M., Tabatabaei, S., van de Kaa, C. H., de la Rosette, J., & Weissleder, R. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022749 · Cited by 1,971
Mostaghel, E. A., Page, S. T., Lin, D. W., Fazli, L., Coleman, I. M., True, L. D., Knudsen, B., Hess, D. L., Nelson, C. C., Matsumoto, A. M., et al. (2007) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-06-3332 · Cited by 529
Cited by
68Ga-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-citationRoach, P. J., Francis, R., Emmett, L., Hsiao, E., Kneebone, A., Hruby, G., Eade, T., Nguyen, Q. A., Thompson, B. D., Cusick, T., et al. (2018) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.117.197160 · Cited by 367
Rowe, S. P., Macura, K. J., Mena, E., Blackford, A. L., Nadal, R., Antonarakis, E. S., Eisenberger, M., Carducci, M., Fan, H., Dannals, R. F., et al. (2016) · Molecular Imaging and Biology · doi:10.1007/s11307-016-0957-6 · Cited by 258
Okamoto, S., Thieme, A., Allmann, J., D’Alessandria, C., Maurer, T., Retz, M., Tauber, R., Heck, M. M., Wester, H.-J., Tamaki, N., et al. (2017) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.178483 · Cited by 213
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Eiber, M., Maurer, T., Souvatzoglou, M., Beer, A. J., Ruffani, A., Haller, B., Graner, F.-P., Kübler, H., Haberhorn, U., Eisenhut, M., Wester, H.-J., Gschwend, J. E., & Schwaiger, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine
- Publisher
- Society of Nuclear Medicine
- Published
- 2015-03-19
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 668-674
- ISSN
- 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
- 2159-662X
- OpenAlex
- W2137670219
- Cited by
- 994
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 121.78
- 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: Evaluation of Hybrid 68Ga-PSMA Ligand PET/CT in 248 Patients with Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2967/jnumed.115.154153
- The paper
- Eiber, M., Maurer, T., Souvatzoglou, M., Beer, A. J., Ruffani, A., Haller, B., Graner, F.-P., Kübler, H., Haberhorn, U., Eisenhut, M., Wester, H.-J., Gschwend, J. E., & Schwaiger, M. (2015). Evaluation of Hybrid 68Ga-PSMA Ligand PET/CT in 248 Patients with Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.154153
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.