The intra- and interobserver variability of PSMA-expression scores in patients with primary prostate cancer
Résumé fourni par la source
Currently, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) is increasingly employed for staging of patients with intermediate- and high-risk primary prostate cancer, as well as in patients experiencing recurrence after treatment with curative intent [ 1 , 2 ]. The immunohistochemical expression of PSMA in primary prostate cancer correlates to the Gleason Grade [ 3 ]. Similarly, most prostate tumours with high Gleason Grades and other poor prognostic parameters have higher PSMA-expression rates, as assessed on PSMA PET/CT [ 4 ]. The initial version of the Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (PROMISE) framework introduced a 4-point PSMA-expression score to describe the PSMA-expression of primary tumours and metastases, aiming to standardize the interpretation and reporting of PSMA-targeted imaging studies [ 5 ]. This PSMA-expression scoring system has been retained in the second version of the PROMISE framework [ 6 ] and is endorsed by the EANM guidelines [ 7 , 8 ]. The PSMA-expression score has been primarily proposed and used as a visual scale. However, limited information exists on the observer variability of the PSMA-expression score. Variations in interpretation among nuclear medicine readers and between different PSMA PET tracers may affect diagnostic interpretation and clinical decision-making regarding patient eligibility for PSMA-ligand directed radionuclide therapy [ 7 , 8 , 9 ].
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- The intra- and interobserver variability of PSMA-expression scores in patients with primary prostate cancer
- Date Crossref
- 24/10/2024
- 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 ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.