Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22795929›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance imaging2012

Early experiences in establishing a regional quantitative imaging network for PET/CT clinical trials.

Robert K Doot, Tove Thompson, Benjamin E Greer, Keith C Allberg, Hannah M Linden, David A Mankoff, Paul E Kinahan

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Magnetic resonance imaging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Qualification of National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers for Quantitative PET/CT Imaging in Clinical Trials.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2017
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Evaluation of Cross-CalibratedTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2016
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Robert K DootDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA. bdoot@uw.edu
Tove Thompson
Benjamin E Greer
Keith C Allberg
Hannah M Linden
David A Mankoff
Paul E Kinahan
Seattle Cancer Care Alliance · USUniversity of Washington · USEquality Now · USWoman's Cancer Foundation · US

Funding

Advanced PET/CT Imaging for Improving Clinical TrialsU01CA148131 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI KINAHAN, PAUL E., LINDEN, HANNAH M · 2010 to 2019
$6.0M
NCI NIH HHS CA148131NCI NIH HHS U01 CA148131PHS HHS 24XS036
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA) is a Pacific Northwest regional network that enables patients from community cancer centers to participate in multicenter oncology clinical trials where patients can receive some trial-related procedures at their local center. Results of positron emission tomography (PET) scans performed at community cancer centers are not currently used in SCCA Network trials since clinical trials customarily accept results from only trial-accredited PET imaging centers located at academic and large hospitals. Oncologists would prefer the option of using standard clinical PET scans from Network sites in multicenter clinical trials to increase accrual of patients for whom additional travel requirements for imaging are a barrier to recruitment. In an effort to increase accrual of rural and other underserved populations to Network trials, researchers and clinicians at the University of Washington, SCCA and its Network are assessing the feasibility of using PET scans from all Network sites in their oncology clinical trials. A feasibility study is required because the reproducibility of multicenter PET measurements ranges from approximately 3% to 40% at national academic centers. Early experiences from both national and local PET phantom imaging trials are discussed, and next steps are proposed for including patient PET scans from the emerging regional quantitative imaging network in clinical trials. There are feasible methods to determine and characterize PET quantitation errors and improve data quality by either prospective scanner calibration or retrospective post hoc corrections. These methods should be developed and implemented in multicenter clinical trials employing quantitative PET imaging of patients.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicCalibrationCancer Care FacilitiesDiagnostic ImagingHumansMedically Underserved AreaMedical OncologyMulticenter Studies as TopicNeoplasmsPhantoms, ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignRural PopulationTomography, X-Ray ComputedUniversities

Identifiers

PMID22795929
PMCPMC3466345
OpenAlexW2091418159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.