% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Hope:278614,
author = {T. A. Hope and M. Benz and F. Jiang and D. Thompson and F.
Barbato and R. Juarez and M. Hernandez Pampaloni and M.
Allen-Auerbach and P. Gupta and W. P. Fendler$^*$ and J.
Calais},
title = {{D}o {B}one {S}cans {O}verstage {D}isease {C}ompared with
{PSMA} {PET} at {I}nitial {S}taging? {A}n {I}nternational
{M}ulticenter {R}etrospective {S}tudy with {M}asked
{I}ndependent {R}eaders.},
journal = {Journal of nuclear medicine},
volume = {64},
number = {11},
issn = {0097-9058},
address = {New York, NY},
publisher = {Soc.},
reportid = {DKFZ-2023-01673},
pages = {1744-1747},
year = {2023},
note = {2023 Nov;64(11):1744-1747},
abstract = {Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET has a higher
accuracy than CT and bone scans to stage patients with
prostate cancer. We do not understand how to apply clinical
trial data based on conventional imaging to patients staged
using PSMA PET. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the ability
of bone scans to detect osseous metastases using PSMA PET as
a reference standard. Methods: In this multicenter
retrospective diagnostic study, 167 patients with prostate
cancer, who were imaged with bone scans and PSMA PET
performed within 100 d, were included for analysis. Each
study was interpreted by 3 masked readers, and the results
of the PSMA PET were used as the reference standard.
Endpoints were positive predictive value (PPV), negative
predictive value (NPV), and specificity for bone scans.
Additionally, interreader reproducibility, positivity rate,
uptake on PSMA PET, and the number of lesions were
evaluated. Results: In total, 167 patients were included,
with 77 at initial staging, 60 in the biochemical recurrence
and castration-sensitive prostate cancer setting, and 30 in
the castration-resistant prostate cancer setting. In all
patients, the PPV, NPV, and specificity for bone scans were
0.73 $(95\%$ CI, 0.61-0.82), 0.82 $(95\%$ CI, 0.74-0.88),
and 0.82 $(95\%$ CI, 0.74-0.88), respectively. In patients
at initial staging, the PPV, NPV, and specificity for bone
scans were 0.43 $(95\%$ CI, 0.26-0.63), 0.94 $(95\%$ CI,
0.85-0.98), and 0.80 $(95\%$ CI, 0.68-0.88), respectively.
Interreader agreement for bone disease was moderate for bone
scans (Fleiss κ, 0.51) and substantial for the PSMA PET
reference standard (Fleiss κ, 0.80). Conclusion: In this
multicenter retrospective study, the PPV of bone scans was
low in patients at initial staging, with $57\%$ of positive
bone scans being false positives. This suggests that a large
proportion of patients considered low-volume metastatic by
the bone scan actually had localized disease, which is
critical when applying clinical data from trials such as the
STAMPEDE M1 radiation therapy trial to patients being staged
with PSMA PET.},
keywords = {PSMA PET (Other) / bone scans (Other) / initial staging
(Other) / oncology (Other) / prostate cancer (Other) /
radiopharmaceuticals (Other)},
cin = {ED01},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)ED01-20160331},
pnm = {899 - ohne Topic (POF4-899)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:37591547},
doi = {10.2967/jnumed.123.265916},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/278614},
}