CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lesion Detection and Interobserver Agreement with Advanced Image Reconstruction for 18 F-DCFPyL PET/CT in Patients with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer

Open access
Jansen, Bernard H.E., Jansen, Robin W., Wondergem, Maurits, Srbljin, Sandra, de Klerk, John M.H., Lissenberg-Witte, Birgit I., Vis, André N., van Moorselaar, Reindert J.A., Boellaard, Ronald, Hoekstra, Otto S., Oprea-Lager, Daniela E.·2020·Journal of Nuclear Medicine
DOI 10.2967/jnumed.118.222513
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BCR) is the main indication to perform prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT. However, localizing BCR with prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT remains challenging in patients with low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values. Here, we studied the impact of advanced PET image reconstruction methods on BCR localization and interobserver agreement with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT scans in patients with BCR and low PSA values. Methods: Twenty-four patients with BCR and a PSA level of less than 2.0 ng/mL were included. PET images were reconstructed with 4-mm voxels and 2-mm voxels, both with and without point-spread function. All scans were interpreted by 4 nuclear medicine physicians. Additionally, PET examinations of 5 patients with primary prostate cancer and confirmed absence of lymph node metastases (after lymph node dissection) were included, to assess the risk of introducing false-positive findings when using advanced reconstruction. Calculation of BCR localization rates (scan positivity) was based on consensus among our readers (≥3 readers regarding a scan positive for BCR), as well as the individual scan interpretations of the readers. Results: In the consensus analysis, BCR localization rates were not higher using advanced reconstruction (62.5%–66.7%) than using 4-mm reconstruction (62.5%). On the basis of individual readings, however, more scans were positive using 2-mm reconstruction (74.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0%–82.9%) (P = 0.027) and 2-mm reconstruction with point-spread function (75.0%; 95% CI, 66.2%–83.8%) (P = 0.014) than 4-mm reconstruction (65.6%; 95% CI, 56.0%–75.3%). A higher number of lesions was detected on the 2-mm scans (median, 2 lesions; interquartile range, 1–3) than the 4-mm scans (median, 1; interquartile range, 0–3; P = 0.008). The advanced reconstruction methods did not increase interobserver agreement (80.6%–84.7%), compared with the 4-mm scans (75.7%, P = 0.08–0.25). In the patients with primary prostate cancer, an equal number of false-positive lesions was observed among the different reconstruction methods (overall, n = 13). Conclusion: Applying advanced image reconstruction for 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT scans did not increase BCR localization in patients with BCR and low PSA values (reader consensus). Yet, the increased number of positive individual readings may imply that further development of image reconstruction methods holds potential to improve BCR localization. No improved interobserver agreement was observed with advanced reconstruction compared with standard 4-mm reconstruction.

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 · 10.2967/jnumed.118.222513

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Conflicting results were reported by other authors who did not find higher lesion conspicuity or detection rates with PSF in small patient samples.

    “Conflicting results were reported by other authors who did not find higher lesion conspicuity or detection rates with PSF in small patient samples [162,164,165].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [165]

    The Discussion reports no improved diagnostic results from PSF and notes the limited number of patients; the Conclusion reports no higher BCR localization rate by reader consensus. However, the Discussion also reports more positive individual readings with 2-mm or 2-mm-plus-PSF reconstruction, and the cited passages do not establish a finding about lesion conspicuity. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Related

Metadata

Authors
Jansen, B. H. E., Jansen, R. W., Wondergem, M., Srbljin, S., de Klerk, J. M. H., Lissenberg-Witte, B. I., Vis, A. N., van Moorselaar, R. J. A., Boellaard, R., Hoekstra, O. S., & Oprea-Lager, D. E.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep (NL)
  • Zaans Medisch Centrum (NL)
  • Meander Medisch Centrum (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Publisher
Society of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2019-09-03
Volume
61
Issue
2
Pages
210-216
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
DOI
10.2967/jnumed.118.222513
OpenAlex
W2971814749
Cited by
12
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Astellas Pharma, Netherlands
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
Keywords
biochemically recurrent prostate cancer, 18F-DCFPyL, point spread function, lesion detection, interobserver agreement, false positives, lymph node metastasis, voxel size, consensus reading, false negative rate, false positive rate, diagnostic accuracy, lymph node dissection
MeSH terms
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Aged, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Lysine, Male, Middle Aged, Prostatic Neoplasms, Urea, Observer Variation

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