ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Which PSMA PET/CT interpretation criteria most effectively diagnose prostate cancer? a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging frontiers and challenges of artificial intelligence in PSMA-PET imaging: pioneering a new chapter in prostate cancer care.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Diagnostic impact of interpretation criteria for [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Can chatGPT-4o reliably standardize PSMA PET/CT and PET/MRI reports using PROMISE V2 criteria? - An exploratory study.EJNMMI research · 2026Article
- Integrating Multiparametric MRI and PSMA PET Imaging in Prostate Cancer: Toward a Unified Diagnostic and Risk-Stratification Paradigm.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- PSMA-RADS 2.0: a revised framework for PSMA-targeted imaging interpretation and clinical decision-making.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Diagnostic value of [Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPSMA PET/CT emerges as a pivotal technology in the diagnostic landscape of prostate cancer (PCa). It offers a suite of imaging interpretation criteria, notably the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), the molecular imaging prostate-specific membrane antigen score (miPSMA score), and the PSMA reporting and data system (PSMA-RADS). Identifying the most valuable criteria for diagnosing PCa and standardizing imaging interpretation across various tracers is an unresolved question. Our study endeavors to pinpoint the most optimal criteria to enhance the precision of PCa diagnosis, encompassing clinically significant PCa (csPCa), by evaluating the consistency and diagnostic accuracy of these three criteria using two [
methodThis retrospective analysis spans a five-year period, focusing on patients with clinically suspected or newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve PCa who underwent
results1.Our head-to-head study reveals that SUVmax and miPSMA score exhibit near-perfect consistency, with PSMA-RADS demonstrating substantial consistency. 2. The diagnostic accuracy ranking, considering both PCa and csPCa, stands as miPSMA score ≈ SUVmax > PSMA-RADS for [
conclusionThe miPSMA score outperforms SUVmax and PSMA-RADS in terms of inter-tracer consistency and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of PCa, including csPCa, when comparing [ CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.