A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

11C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for preoperative lymph-node staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer: comparison with clinical staging nomograms. | LitMetric

Background: Conventional imaging (CI) techniques are inadequate for lymph node (LN) staging in prostate cancer (PCa).

Objectives: To assess the accuracy of (11)C-Choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) for LN staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk PCa and to compare it with two currently used nomograms.

Design, Setting, And Participants: From January 2007 to September 2007, 57 PCa patients at intermediate risk (n=27) or high risk (n=30) were enrolled at two academic centres. All patients underwent preoperative PET/CT and radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic LN dissection (PLND). Risk of LN metastasis (LNM) was assessed using available nomograms.

Measurements: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and number of correctly recognized cases for LNM detection at PET/CT were assessed. The accuracy of PET/CT for LNM detection was compared with the accuracy of nomograms for LNM prediction by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

Results And Limitations: Fifteen patients (26%) had LNMs, and a total of 41 LNMs were identified. On a patient analysis, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and number of correctly recognized cases at PET/CT were 60.0%, 97.6%, 90.0%, 87.2%, and 87.7% while, on node analysis, these numbers were 41.4%, 99.8%, 94.4%, 97.2%, and 97.1%. The mean diameter (in mm) of the metastatic deposit of true-positive LNs was significantly higher than that of false-negative LNs (9.2 vs 4.2; p=0.001). PET/CT showed higher specificity and accuracy than the nomograms; however, in pairwise comparison, the areas under the curve (AUCs) were not statistically different (all p values >0.05).

Conclusions: In patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk PCa, (11)C-Choline PET/CT has quite a low sensitivity for LNM detection but performed better than clinical nomograms, with equal sensitivity and better specificity.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.04.030DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

intermediate-risk high-risk
12
lnm detection
12
11c-choline positron
8
positron emission
8
emission tomography/computerized
8
tomography/computerized tomography
8
staging intermediate-risk
8
prostate cancer
8
high-risk pca
8
sensitivity specificity
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!