Study

reference

Patient selection

Index test

Reference standard

Flow and timing

Comments with respect to

applicability

Maurer, 2015

Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?

Yes

Was a case-control design avoided?

Unclear

Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?

Unclear

Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?

Yes

If a threshold was used, was it pre-specified?

Unclear

Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?

Unclear

Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?

Yes

Was there an appropriate interval between index test(s) and reference standard?

Yes

Did all patients receive a reference standard?

Yes

Did patients receive the same reference standard?

Yes

Were all patients included in the analysis?

Yes

Are there concerns that the included patients do not match the review question?

Unclear

Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?

Unclear

Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the review question?

No

CONCLUSION:

Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?

CONCLUSION:

Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?

CONCLUSION:

Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?

CONCLUSION

Could the patient flow have introduced bias?

RISK: UNCLEAR

RISK: UNCLEAR

RISK: LOW

RISK: LOW

Öbek, 2017

Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?

Unclear

Was a case-control design avoided?

Unclear

Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?

Unclear

Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?

Yes

If a threshold was used, was it pre-specified?

Unclear

Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?

Unclear

Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?

Yes

Was there an appropriate interval between index test(s) and reference standard?

Yes

Did all patients receive a reference standard?

Yes

Did patients receive the same reference standard?

Yes

Are there concerns that the included patients do not match the review question?

Unclear

Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?

Unclear

Were all patients included in the analysis?

Yes

Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the review question?

No

CONCLUSION:

Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?

RISK: UNCLEAR

CONCLUSION:

Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

CONCLUSION:

Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

CONCLUSION

Could the patient flow have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

Afshar- Oromieh, 2015;

Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?

Unclear

Was a case-control design avoided?

Unclear

Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?

Unclear

Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?

Yes

If a threshold was used, was it pre-specified?

Unclear

Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?

Unclear

Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?

Yes

Was there an appropriate interval between index test(s) and reference standard?

Yes

Did all patients receive a reference standard?

Yes

Did patients receive the same reference standard?

Yes

Were all patients included in the analysis?

Yes

Are there concerns that the included patients do not match the review question?

Unclear

Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?

Unclear

Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the review question?

No

CONCLUSION:

Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?

RISK: UNCLEAR

CONCLUSION:

Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

CONCLUSION:

Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

CONCLUSION

Could the patient flow have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

Eiber, 2016;

Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?

Yes

Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference

standard?

Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?

Unclear

Was there an appropriate interval between index test(s) and reference standard?

Yes

Are there concerns that the included patients do not match the review question?

Unclear

Herlemann, 2017,

Was a case-control design avoided?

Unclear

Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?

Unclear

Yes

If a threshold was used, was it pre-specified?

Unclear

Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?

Yes

Did all patients receive a reference standard?

Yes

Did patients receive the same reference standard?

Yes

Were all patients included in the analysis?

Yes

Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?

Unclear

Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the review question?

No

CONCLUSION:

Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

CONCLUSION:

Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?

RISK: UNCLEAR

CONCLUSION:

Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

CONCLUSION

Could the patient flow have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?

Unclear

Was a case-control design avoided?

Unclear

Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?

Unclear

Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?

Yes

If a threshold was used, was it pre-specified?

Unclear

Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?

Unclear

Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?

Yes

Was there an appropriate interval between index test(s) and reference standard?

Yes

Did all patients receive a reference standard?

Yes

Did patients receive the same reference standard?

Yes

Were all patients included in the analysis?

Yes

Are there concerns that the included patients do not match the review question?

Unclear

Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?

Unclear

Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the review question?

No

CONCLUSION:

Could the selection of patients

have introduced bias?

CONCLUSION:

CONCLUSION:

CONCLUSION

Could the patient flow have

introduced bias?

RISK: UNCLEAR

Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

RISK: LOW

Van Leeuwen, 2017

Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?

Yes

Was a case-control design avoided?

Unclear

Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?

Unclear

Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?

Yes

If a threshold was used, was it pre-specified?

Unclear

Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?

Unclear

Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?

Yes

Was there an appropriate interval between index test(s) and reference standard?

Yes

Did all patients receive a reference standard?

Yes

Did patients receive the same reference standard?

Yes

Were all patients included in the analysis?

Yes

Are there concerns that the included patients do not match the review question?

Unclear

Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?

Unclear

Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the review question?

No

CONCLUSION:

Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

CONCLUSION:

Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?

RISK: UNCLEAR

CONCLUSION:

Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

CONCLUSION

Could the patient flow have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

Nanni, 2016;

Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?

Unclear

Was a case-control design avoided?

Unclear

Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?

Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?

Yes

If a threshold was used, was it pre-specified?

Unclear

Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?

Unclear

Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?

Yes

Was there an appropriate interval between index test(s) and reference standard?

Yes

Did all patients receive a reference standard?

Yes

Are there concerns that the included patients do not match the review question?

Unclear

Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?

Unclear

Schuster, 2014;

Unclear

Did patients receive the same reference standard?

Yes

Were all patients included in the analysis?

Yes

Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the review question?

No

CONCLUSION:

Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?

RISK: UNCLEAR

CONCLUSION:

Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

CONCLUSION:

Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

CONCLUSION

Could the patient flow have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?

Unclear

Was a case-control design avoided?

Unclear

Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?

Unclear

Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?

Yes

If a threshold was used, was it pre-specified?

Unclear

Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?

Unclear

Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?

Yes

Was there an appropriate interval between index test(s) and reference standard?

Yes

Did all patients receive a reference standard?

Yes

Did patients receive the same reference standard?

Yes

Were all patients included in the analysis?

Yes

Are there concerns that the included patients do not match the review question?

Unclear

Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?

Unclear

Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the review question?

No

CONCLUSION:

Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?

RISK: UNCLEAR

CONCLUSION:

Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

CONCLUSION:

Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

CONCLUSION

Could the patient flow have introduced bias?

RISK: LOW

Suzuki, 2016

Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?

Unclear

Was a case-control design avoided?

Unclear

Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?

Unclear

Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?

Yes

If a threshold was used, was it pre-specified?

Unclear

Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?

Unclear

Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test?

Yes

Was there an appropriate interval between index test(s) and reference standard?

Yes

Did all patients receive a reference standard?

Yes

Did patients receive the same reference standard?

Yes

Were all patients included in the analysis?

Yes

CONCLUSION:

Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?

CONCLUSION:

Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?

CONCLUSION:

Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?

CONCLUSION

Could the patient flow have introduced bias?

RISK: UNCLEAR

RISK: LOW

RISK: LOW

RISK: LOW

Study reference

Study characteristics

Patient characteristics

Index test

(test of interest)

Reference test

Follow-up

Outcome measures and

effect size

Comments

Maurer, 2015

Type of study1: retrospective analysis

Setting and country: Germany

Funding and

conflicts of interest:

Not reported.

Inclusion criteria: From December 2012 to November

2014 all

consecutive patients with

intermediate to high risk PCa according

to D’Amico et al14 without concomitant cancer who underwent 68Ga-

PSMA-PET and

Describe index test:

68Ga-HBED-PSMA

Cut-off point(s):

Youden index (sensitivity, specificity) was used to determine the best cutoff

Comparator test2: None

Cut-off point(s): None

Describe reference test3: Histopathology

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

Time between the index test en reference test:

4 weeks

For how many participants were no complete outcome data available?

None.

Outcome measures and effect size (include 95%CI and p-value if available)4:

Patient level: Sensitivity: 74%

Specificity: 100%

PPV: 95%

NPV: 94%

Authors’ conclusions: In patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer preoperative lymph node staging with

68Ga-PSMA-PET proved to be superior to standard routine imaging. Thus it has the potential to replace

current standard imaging for this indication if confirmed by prospective studies

subsequent RPX at our

institution were included in analysis.

N= 130

Prevalence: 41%

Mean age ± SD: 66.5 (61.0 - 72.0)

Reasons for incomplete outcome data described?

Not applicable.

Leasie level: Sensitivity: 58%

Specificity: 100%

PPV: 84%

NPV: 82%

Öbek, 2017

Type of study: retrospective analysis

Setting and country: Germany

Funding and

conflicts of interest: Research grant from the Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Istanbul University

Inclusion criteria: Patients with high- risk and very high- risk nonmetastatic prostate

cancer scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy and extended LN

dissection were included

Exclusion criteria: Exclusion criteria included receiving or having received hormone treatment prior to surgery, history of pelvic radiation, diagnosis of cancer

elsewhere within

Describe index test: 68Ga-PSMA

Cut-off point(s): Not reported

Comparator test: None.

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

Describe reference test: Histopathology

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

Time between the index test en reference test:

12 weeks

For how many participants were no complete outcome data available?

None.

Reasons for incomplete outcome data described?

Not applicable.

Outcome measures and effect size (include 95%CI and p-value if available):

Patient level: Sensitivity: 53%

Specificity: 86%

PPV: 62%

NPV: 81%

Authors’ conclusions: PSMA PET/CT is superior to morphological imaging

for the detection of metastatic LNs in patients with primary prostate cancer. Surgical dissection remains the gold standard for precise lymphatic staging.

the last 5 years (except

for successfully treated squamous or basal cell carcinoma of

the skin) or fewer than ten LNs in the final pathological analysis.

N= 51

Prevalence: Mean age ± SD: Sex: % M / % F

Other important characteristics:

Afshar- Oromieh, 2015;

Type of study: retrospective analysis

Setting and country: Germany.

Funding and

conflicts of interest:

Not reported

Inclusion criteria: ethics committee of the Heidelberg University (permit S-321/2012).

All patients underwent regular whole-body PET scans (from the head to the upper parts of the legs) at 1 h after injection.

Thirty of

the scans at 3 h

after injection covered the whole

Describe index test: 68Ga-PSMA-11

Cut-off point(s): Not reported

Comparator test: None

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

Describe reference test: Histopathology

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

Time between the index test en reference test:

Not reported

For how many participants were no

complete outcome data available?

Unclear

Reasons for incomplete

Outcome measures and effect size (include 95%CI and p-value if available):

Patient level: Sensitivity: 77%

Specificity: 100%

Authors’ conclusions: 68Ga- PSMA-11 PET/CT at 3 h after injection showed most lesions characteristic for PCa with a higher uptake and contrast.

In addition, the radioactivity signal within the urinary bladder was lower at 3 h after injection, especially when furosemide was applied. Consequently, scans at 3 h after injection detected more tumor lesions than at 1 h after injection.

body, 17 of them the

abdomen and pelvis, and 65 of them the pelvis only.

N=112

Prevalence: Not reported

Mean age ± SD: 69.8 (7.8)

outcome data described?

Not reported.

Eiber, 2016;

Type of study: Retrospective analysis

Setting and country: Germany

Funding and

conflicts of

interest: Not reported

Inclusion criteria: Three hundred ninety-three consecutive patients who underwent

68Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT imaging for recurrent PC were extracted

from the

institutions’ database (November 2012

to April 2014).

Only

patients who had undergone RP, whose PSA level

was $0.2 ng/mL

Describe index test: 68Ga-PSMA

Cut-off point(s): Not reported.

Comparator test: None

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

Describe reference test: Histopathology

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

Time between the index test en reference test:

4 months

For how many participants were no

complete outcome data available?

None

Reasons for incomplete outcome data describe

Not reported.

Outcome measures and effect size (include 95%CI and p-value if available):

Patient level: Sensitivity: 64%

Specificity: 94%

Authors’ conclusions:

Hybrid 68Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT shows substantially

higher detection rates than reported for other imaging modalities.

Most importantly, it reveals a high number of positive

findings in the clinically important range of low PSA values (,0.5 ng/mL), which in many cases can substantially influence the further clinical management.

and had not received chemotherapy, were included

N=248

Prevalence: 97.2%

Mean age (range): 70 (46 – 85)

Herlemann, 2017,

Type of study: Retrospective analysis

Setting and country:

Funding and

conflicts of interest:

Inclusion criteria: Patients with high- risk and very high- risk nonmetastatic prostate

cancer scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy and extended LN

dissection were included

N= 235

Mean age (range): 71 (63-84)

Other important characteristics:

Describe index test: 68Ga-PSMA

Cut-off point(s): Not reported.

Comparator test: None

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

Describe reference test: Histopathology

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

Time between the index test en reference test:

6 weeks

For how many participants were no

complete outcome data available?

None

Reasons for incomplete outcome data describe

Not reported.

Outcome measures and effect size (include 95%CI and p-value if available):

Patient level: Sensitivity: 63%

Specificity: 83%

PPV: 86%

NPV: 56%

Authors’ conclusions:

Van Leeuwen, 2017

Type of study: Prospective cohort

Setting and country:

Inclusion criteria: Men who had undergone RP and were diagnosed with

Describe index test: 68Ga-PSMA

Cut-off point(s): Not reported.

Describe reference test: Histopathology

Cut-off point(s):

Time between the index test en reference test:

32 months

Outcome measures and effect size (include 95%CI and p-value if

available):

Authors’ conclusions:

68Ga-PSMA appears to be useful for re-staging of PCa in

patients with rising PSA levels

who are being considered for

Australia

Funding and

conflicts of interest:

Not reported

BCR (PSA ≥0.05

and <1.0 ng/mL) and were being considered for salvage RT were selected for the present

study. No patients had evidence of local/regional recurrence

or metastatic disease on conventional clinical evaluation.

Exclusion criteria: medicine physicians for the purpose of this study. Patients previously treated with RT

or patients on any systemic treatment were excluded.

Comparator test: None

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

Not applicable

For how many participants were no

complete outcome data available?

None

Reasons for incomplete outcome data describe

Not reported

Patient level: Sensitivity: 58%

Specificity: 100%

PPV: 94%

NPV: 98%

Leasie level: Sensitivity: 74%

Specificity: 99%

PPV: 94%

NPV: 98%

salvage RT even at PSA levels <0.5 ng/mL. These results

underline the need for further prospective trials to evaluate

the changes in RT volume or management attributable to 68Ga-PSMA findings.

N=70

Prevalence: 27%

Mean age (range): 62 (57–67)

Nanni, 2016;

Type of study:

Prospective cohort

Inclusion criteria: PCa treated

Describe index test:

18F-FACBC

Describe

reference test: Histopathology

Time between the index test

Outcome

measures and effect size

Authors’ conclusions:

Setting country: Italy

Funding conflicts interest: reported

and

and of Not

with radical prostatectomy at least 3 months before enrolment,

(2) recurrent PCa suspected on the basis of an absolute PSA

level of 0.2 mg/mL or greater after prostatectomy, (3) conventional imaging performed, (4) age

≥18 years, and (5) 11C-choline PET/CT performed within 1 week of 18F-FACBC PET/CT

Cut-off point(s): Not reported.

Comparator test: None

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

en reference test:

12 months

For how many participants were no

complete outcome data available?

None

Reasons for incomplete outcome data describe

Not reported

(include 95%CI and p-value if available):

Patient level: Sensitivity: 37%

Specificity: 67%

PPV: 97%

NPV: 4%

18F-FACBC can be considered an alternative tracer superior to 11C-choline in the setting of patients with

biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy

Exclusion criteria:

N=89

Prevalence: 26%

Mean age (range): 69 (55-83)

Schuster, 2014;

Type of study: Prospective cohort

Setting and country:

US

Inclusion criteria: Patients were enrolled according to certain inclusion criteria, including

1) an original diagnosis of

localized (stage

T1c, T2 or T3)

Describe index test:

Anti-3-[18F]FACBC

Cut-off point(s):

A logistic regression model was constructed to determine the probability of positive scan interpretations at various PSA

cutoffs

Describe reference test: Histopathology

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

Time between the index test en reference test: 1 month

For how many participants were no

complete

Outcome measures and effect size (include 95%CI and p-value if available):

Patient level:

Authors’ conclusions:

Better diagnostic performance was noted for anti-3-[18F]FACBC positron emission tomography- computerized tomography than for 111In-capromab pendetide

single photon emission

Funding and

conflicts of

interest: Not reported

prostate carcinoma with subsequent definitive therapy,

2. suspicion of recurrent prostate carcinoma, as defined by

the previous ASTRO (American Society for Radiation Oncology) criteria of 3 consecutive PSA increases and/or

the more recent ASTRO/Phoenix criteria of nadir PSA

greater than 2.0 ng/ml after

radiotherapy or cryotherapy and/or greater than 0.2 ng/ml after prostatectomy and

3. bone scan negative for metastatic disease

N= 93

Prevalence: 75% Mean age ± SD:

Comparator test: None.

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

outcome data available?

N (%) None.

Reasons for incomplete outcome data described? Not reported.

Sensitivity: 90%

Specificity: 40%

PPV: 75%

NPV: 67%

computerized tomography- computerized tomography

for prostate carcinoma recurrence. The former method detected

significantly more prostatic and extraprostatic disease.

68.0 (7.6)

Suzuki, 2016

Type of study: Prospective cohort

Setting and country: Japan

Funding and

conflicts of

interest: Not reported

Inclusion criteria: The subjects of this trial were

untreated patients with prostate cancer

confirmed with histopathology after needle

biopsy and scheduled for radical prostatectomy (radical prostatectomy cohort) or hormone

therapy (hormone therapy cohort) at the age of 20 years or older

when consent was obtained

Describe index test:

NMK36

(trans-1-amino-3- [18F]fluorocyclobutanecarboxylic acid)

Cut-off point(s): Not reported.

Comparator test: None

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

Describe reference test: Histopathology

Cut-off point(s): Not applicable

Time between the index test en reference test: 21 days

For how many participants were no

complete outcome data available?

N (%) None.

Reasons for incomplete outcome data described? Not reported.

Outcome measures and effect size (include 95%CI and p-value if available):

Patient level: Sensitivity: 65%

Specificity: 97%

Leasie level: Sensitivity: 93%

Specificity: 90%

Authors’ conclusions:

This study showed the comparable diagnostic performance of NMK36-positron emission

tomography/computed tomography compared with conventional imaging. Some lesions of

lymph node and bone were positive solely by NMK36- positron emission tomography/computed tomography, which needs to be confirmed with reference standard in future study to evaluate the

usefulness of NMK36-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in staging prostate cancer.

Exclusion criteria:

N= 55

Prevalence: 91%

Mean age ± SD:

Other important characteristics:

Auteur en jaartal

Redenen van exclusie

Beauregard, 2010

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Beheshti, 2008

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Beheshti, 2010

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Budiharto, 2011

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Contractor, 2011

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Hacker, 2006

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Heck, 2014

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Husarik, 2008

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Picchio, 2012

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Pinaguy, 2015

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Poulsen, 2012

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Poulsen, 2014

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Schiavina, 2008

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Vag, 2014

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Bertagna, 2011

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Kitajima, 2014

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Reske, 2008

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Richter, 2010

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Scattoni, 2007

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Tilki, 2013

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Van den Bergh, 2012

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-choline

Budäus, 2016

Voldoet niet aan inclusiecriteria: te kleien studie sample (<n=20)

Rahbar, 2015

Voldoet niet aan inclusiecriteria: te kleien studie sample (<n=20)

Rowe, 2016

Voldoet niet aan inclusiecriteria: te kleien studie sample (<n=20)

Pfister, 2016

Voldoet niet aan inclusiecriteria: te kleien studie sample (<n=20)

Sahlmann, 2016

Voldoet niet aan inclusiecriteria: te kleien studie sample (<n=20)

Hijazi, 2015

Voldoet niet aan inclusiecriteria: te kleien studie sample (<n=20)

Beheshti, 2008

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-NaF

Even-Sapir, 2006

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-NaF

Langsteger, 2011

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-NaF

Poulsen, 2014

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-NaF

Jadvar, 2012

Komt niet overeen met PICO-criteria: 18F-NaF