Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16118
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPerera, Marlon-
dc.contributor.authorPapa, Nathan-
dc.contributor.authorChristidis, Daniel-
dc.contributor.authorWetherell, David-
dc.contributor.authorHofman, Michael S-
dc.contributor.authorMurphy, Declan G-
dc.contributor.authorBolton, Damien M-
dc.contributor.authorLawrentschuk, Nathan-
dc.date2016-06-28-
dc.date.accessioned2016-08-10T02:06:53Z-
dc.date.available2016-08-10T02:06:53Z-
dc.date.issued2016-12-
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Urology 2016; 70(6): 926-937en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16118-
dc.description.abstractCONTEXT: Positron emission tomography (PET) of 68Ga-labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen (68Ga-PSMA) is an emerging imaging modality introduced to assess the burden of prostate cancer, typically in biochemically recurrent or advanced disease. 68Ga-PSMA PET provides the ability to selectively identify and localize metastatic prostate cancer cells and subsequently change patient management. Owing to its limited history, robust sensitivity and specificity data are not available for 68Ga-PSMA PET-positive scans. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis of reported predictors of positive 68Ga-PSMA PET and corresponding sensitivity and specificity profiles. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed critical reviews of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases in April 2016 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment if Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Meta-analysis and meta-regression of proportions were performed using a random-effects model with pre-PET prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels as the dependent variable. Summary sensitivity and specificity values were obtained by fitting bivariate hierarchical regression models. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Sixteen articles involving 1309 patients were analysed. The overall percentage of positive 68Ga-PSMA PET among patients was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-64%) for primary staging and 76% (95% CI 66-85%) for biochemical recurrence (BCR). Positive 68Ga-PSMA PET scans for BCR patients increased with pre-PET PSA. For the PSA categories 0-0.2, 0.2-1, 1-2, and >2 ng/ml, 42%, 58%, 76%, and 95% scans, respectively, were positive. Shorter PSA doubling time increased 68Ga-PSMA PET positivity. On per-patient analysis, the summary sensitivity and specificity were both 86%. On per-lesion analysis, the summary sensitivity and specificity were 80% and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of BCR prostate cancer, pre-PET PSA predicts the risk of positive 68Ga-PSMA PET. Pooled data indicate favourable sensitivity and specificity profiles compared to choline-based PET imaging techniques. PATIENT SUMMARY: Positron emission tomography using 68Ga-labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen is an emerging radiological technique developed to improve the characterisation of metastatic prostate cancer. We summarised the data available to date and found that this new test provides excellent rates of detection of cancer spread in late-stage prostate cancer.en_US
dc.subjectBiochemical recurrenceen_US
dc.subjectImagingen_US
dc.subjectMetastasesen_US
dc.subjectPositron emission tomographyen_US
dc.subjectProstate canceren_US
dc.subjectProstate-specific antigenen_US
dc.subjectProstate-specific membrane antigenen_US
dc.titleSensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleEuropean Urologyen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationAustin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Surgery, Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationCentre for Molecular Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDivision of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationAustralian Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Epworth Healthcare, Richmond, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationOlivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.type.studyortrialSystematic Reviewsen_US
dc.identifier.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27363387en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.021en_US
dc.type.contentTexten_US
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-3188-1803en_US
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-5783-3642en_US
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-8553-5618en_US
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-5145-6783en_US
dc.type.austinJournal Articleen_US
local.name.researcherBolton, Damien M
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
crisitem.author.deptSurgery-
crisitem.author.deptUrology-
crisitem.author.deptUrology-
crisitem.author.deptSurgery (University of Melbourne)-
crisitem.author.deptUrology-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

36
checked on Nov 20, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.