Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Journal of Nuclear Medicine · October 29, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
The incremental value of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT over multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for selecting patients for prostate cancer focal therapy is undefined. Unlike lesion-detection studies, we evaluated whether PSMA PET/CT, mpMRI, and their combination correctly determine focal therapy eligibility when validated against whole-mount histopathology (WMHP). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) at UCLA (2017–2024) with preoperative PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI, a biopsy grade group (GG) of 3 or less, unilateral disease, and a prostate-specific antigen level of less than 20 ng/mL. Two blinded readers per modality assessed extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), bilateral disease, and multifocality; a third adjudicated discordances. Eligibility required the absence of all 4. On WMHP, ineligibility was EPE, SVI, multifocal or bilateral disease with a contralateral or secondary GG of at least 2 nodules, or any GG greater than 3 focus at RP. Modalities were compared by McNemar tests. Results: Of 112 patients, 77 (69%) were ineligible on WMHP, including 19 (17%) with a GG greater than 3 focus at RP. Sensitivity and specificity were 53% and 54% for PET and 70% and 49% for mpMRI. Combined imaging improved sensitivity to 83% (P < 0.001 vs. PET; P = 0.002 vs. MRI) but reduced specificity to 26%. Per 100 patients at this prevalence, this would correctly identify approximately 9 additional ineligible patients while falsely excluding approximately 7 true candidates. mpMRI was more sensitive than PET for EPE (77% vs. 32%, P < 0.001), whereas PET was more specific (90% vs. 58%, P < 0.001). Combined imaging improved detection of multifocal (44% vs. 23%, P = 0.001) and bilateral disease (45% vs. 23%, P = 0.002) versus MRI alone. Conclusion: Adding PSMA PET/CT to mpMRI significantly improves sensitivity for exclusionary features, reflecting complementary molecular and anatomic information. However, combined imaging still misses a substantial proportion of adverse pathology, so imaging alone should not determine eligibility.