ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2013
Comparison of standardized uptake values in normal structures between PET/CT and PET/MRI in an oncology patient population.
Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective comparison ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Trial
- Automatic assessment of body composition in children with lymphoma: results of a [European radiology · 2025Article
- Prospective comparison of positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance and PET/computed tomography dosimetry in hepatic malignant neoplastic disease afterJournal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Diagnostic value of integratedBMC cancer · 2022Article
- Diagnostic value of hybrid FDG-PET/MR imaging of chronic osteomyelitis.European journal of hybrid imaging · 2022Article
- Assessing the qualitative and quantitative impacts of simple two-class vs multiple tissue-class MR-based attenuation correction for cardiac PET/MR.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
- Hybrid FDG-PET/MR imaging of chronic osteomyelitis: a prospective case series.European journal of hybrid imaging · 2019Article
- Validation of MR-Based Attenuation Correction of a Newly Released Whole-Body Simultaneous PET/MR System.BioMed research international · 2019Article
- Diagnostic performance of an automated analysis software for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's dementia withAmerican journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Article
- Whole-body staging of female patients with recurrent pelvic malignancies: Ultra-fast 18F-FDG PET/MRI compared to 18F-FDG PET/CT and CT.PloS one · 2017Article
- Glioma FMISO PET/MR Imaging Concurrent with Antiangiogenic Therapy: Molecular Imaging as a Clinical Tool in the Burgeoning Era of Personalized Medicine.Biomedicines · 2016Article
- Software-based PET-MR image coregistration: combined PET-MRI for the rest of us!Pediatric radiology · 2016Article
- Time to move to PET-MR for cardiovascular imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016Article
- Standardized Uptake Values from PET/MRI in Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Organ-based Comparison With PET/CT.The breast journal · 2016Article
- Combined PET/MRI: Multi-modality Multi-parametric Imaging Is Here: Summary Report of the 4th International Workshop on PET/MR Imaging; February 23-27, 2015, Tübingen, Germany.Molecular imaging and biology · 2015Review
- Non-invasive diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases.World journal of radiology · 2015Review
- Positron Emission Tomography: Current Challenges and Opportunities for Technological Advances in Clinical and Preclinical Imaging Systems.Annual review of biomedical engineering · 2015Review
- Simultaneous whole-body time-of-flight 18F-FDG PET/MRI: a pilot study comparing SUVmax with PET/CT and assessment of MR image quality.Clinical nuclear medicine · 2015Article
- Qualitative and quantitative performance of ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/MRI versus ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2014Article
- Multimodality molecular imaging of the lung.Clinical and translational imaging · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare and correlate standardized uptake values (SUV) derived from magnetic resonance attenuation correction (MRAC) with those derived from computed tomography attenuation correction (CTAC) in an oncology patient population. PROCEDURES: The HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the Internal Review Board and all subjects gave written informed consent prior to inclusion in the study. Forty patients (mean age 61 ± 15.1; 20 male) referred for clinically indicated 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scans also underwent a PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination. MRAC was performed using an automatic three-segment model. Regions of interest were drawn over eight normal structures in order to obtain SUVmax and SUVmean values. Spearman rank correlation coefficients (r) were calculated and two-tailed paired t tests were performed to compare the SUVmax and SUVmean values obtained from CTAC with those from MRAC.
resultsThe mean time after FDG injection was 66 ± 7 min for PET/CT and 117 ± 15 min for PET/MRI examination. MRAC SUV values were significantly lower than the CTAC SUV values in mediastinal blood pool (p < 0.001 for both SUVmax and SUVmean) and liver (p = 0.01 for SUVmean). The MRAC SUV values were significantly higher in bone marrow (p < 0.001 for both SUVmax and SUVmean), psoas major muscle (p < 0.001 for SUVmax), and left ventricular myocardium (p < 0.001 for SUVmax and p = 0.01 for SUVmean). For the other normal structures, no significant difference was observed. When comparing SUV values generated from CTAC versus MRAC, high correlations between CTAC and MRAC were observed in myocardium (r = 0.96/0.97 for SUVmax/mean), liver (r = 0.68 for SUVmax), bone marrow (r = 0.80/0.83 for SUVmax/mean), lung tissue (r = 0.70 for SUVmax), and mediastinal blood pool (r = 0.0.68/.069 for SUVmax/mean). Moderate correlations were found in lung tissue (r = 0.67 for SUV mean), liver (r = 0.66 for SUVmean), fat (r = 0.48/0.53 for SUVmax/mean), psoas major muscle (r = 0.54/0.58 for SUVmax/mean), and iliacus muscle (r = 0.41 for SUVmax). Low correlation was found in iliacus muscle (r = 0.32 for SUVmean).
conclusionsUsing the automatic three-segment model, our study showed high correlation for measurement of SUV values obtained from MRAC compared to those from CTAC, as the reference standard. Differences observed between MRAC and CTAC derived SUV values may be attributed to the time-delay between the PET/CT and PET/MRI scans or biologic clearance of radiotracer. Further studies are required to assess SUV measurements when performing different MR attenuation correction techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.