A bicentric retrospective study of the correlation of EAU BCR risk groups with 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT detection in prostate cancer biochemical recurrence
Rattachement africain : fr. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract The European Association of Urology (EAU) has proposed a risk stratification for patients harboring biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy: ISUP < 4 and PSA doubling time (PSAdt) > 12 months for low risk, and ISUP ≥ 4 or PSAdt ≤ 12 months for high risk. This dual-center retrospective study aims to investigate the correlation between the EAU risk stratification for BCR following radical prostatectomy and the detection rate of lesions using 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT. Among the 71 included patients (58 high-risk, 13 low-risk), with a median PSA level of 1.43 ng/ml, PET/CT demonstrated a significantly higher positivity in the high-risk group compared to the low-risk group (72.4% vs. 38.0%, p = 0.026). Analysis of recurrence sites revealed a similar proportion of pelvic-confined disease in both groups (24.1% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.935), but a significantly higher incidence of metastatic disease in the high-risk group (51.7% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.017), with detailed findings indicating an increased prevalence of bone metastases in the high-risk BCR group (37.8% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.048). Therefore, PSMA PET/CT offers valuable insights for treatment decisions, aligning with the evolving landscape of prostate cancer management.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- A bicentric retrospective study of the correlation of EAU BCR risk groups with 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT detection in prostate cancer biochemical recurrence
- Date Crossref
- 13/05/2024
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.