ReviewTheranostics2013
Tumor quantification in clinical positron emission tomography.
Review in Theranostics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prognostic value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT parameters in patients with pancreatic carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) on PET imaging of atherosclerosis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2016Guideline
- CRH stimulation improvesEndocrine · 2019Trial
- Quantification of FDG-PET/CT with delayed imaging in patients with newly diagnosed recurrent breast cancer.BMC medical imaging · 2018Trial
- Comparison among Reconstruction Algorithms for Quantitative Analysis ofContrast media & molecular imaging · 2018Trial
- Quantification of metabolic tumor activity and burden in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: Is manual adjustment of semiautomatic gradient-based measurements necessary?Nuclear medicine communications · 2015Trial
- Impact of local tumor-to-background uptake ratio on PET metabolic response assessment.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2026Article
- Distinct bone metabolic networks identified inFrontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based whole-body PSMA PET/CT attenuation correction utilizing Pix-2-Pix GAN.Oncotarget · 2024Article
- Article
- Post-acquisition standardization of positron emission tomography images.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2023Article
- From coarse to fine: a deep 3D probability volume contours framework for tumour segmentation and dose painting in PET images.Frontiers in radiology · 2023Article
- Focal Nasopharyngeal Activity Detected on [Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Classification of solid pulmonary nodules using a machine-learning nomogram based onAnnals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Blocking Studies to Evaluate Receptor-Specific Radioligand Binding in the CAM Model by PET and MR Imaging.Cancers · 2022Article
- Tumor Size Measurements for Predicting Hodgkin's and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Response to Treatment.Metabolites · 2022Article
- [AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2022Review
- Article
- Development of Dual Receptor Enhanced Pre-Targeting Strategy-A Novel Promising Technology for Immuno-Positron Emission Tomography Imaging.Advanced therapeutics · 2021Article
- Impacts of acquisition and reconstruction parameters on the absolute technetium quantification of the cadmium-zinc-telluride-based SPECT/CT system: a phantom study.EJNMMI physics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Positron emission tomography (PET) is used extensively in clinical oncology for tumor detection, staging and therapy response assessment. Quantitative measurements of tumor uptake, usually in the form of standardized uptake values (SUVs), have enhanced or replaced qualitative interpretation. In this paper we review the current status of tumor quantification methods and their applications to clinical oncology. Factors that impede quantitative assessment and limit its accuracy and reproducibility are summarized, with special emphasis on SUV analysis. We describe current efforts to improve the accuracy of tumor uptake measurements, characterize overall metabolic tumor burden and heterogeneity of tumor uptake, and account for the effects of image noise. We also summarize recent developments in PET instrumentation and image reconstruction and their impact on tumor quantification. Finally, we offer our assessment of the current development needs in PET tumor quantification, including practical techniques for fully quantitative, pharmacokinetic measurements.
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.