ArticleTranslational oncology2014
Biases in Multicenter Longitudinal PET Standardized Uptake Value Measurements.
Article in Translational oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variability in PET image quality and quantification measured with a permanently filledEJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Hot spot imaging in cardiovascular diseases: an information statement from SNMMI, ASNC, and EANM.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- Shortened duration whole bodyEJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Developing quality assurance tests for simultaneous Positron Emission Tomography - Magnetic Resonance imaging for radiotherapy planning.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Q-Bot: automatic DICOM metadata monitoring for the next level of quality management in nuclear medicine.EJNMMI physics · 2021Article
- 3D printing of radioactive phantoms for nuclear medicine imaging.EJNMMI physics · 2020Article
- Test-Retest Reproducibility ofJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2019Article
- An account of data entry inconsistencies and their impact on positron emission tomography quantification.Medicine · 2018Article
- Feasibility of state of the art PET/CT systems performance harmonisation.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018Article
- Two determinations of the Ge-68 half-life.Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine · 2018Article
- Simultaneous Estimation of Bias and Resolution in PET Images With a Long-Lived "Pocket" Phantom System.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2018Article
- Multicenter survey of PET/CT protocol parameters that affect standardized uptake values.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2018Article
- Measuring temporal stability of positron emission tomography standardized uptake value bias using long-lived sources in a multicenter network.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2018Article
- Guidelines for quality control of PET/CT scans in a multicenter clinical study.EJNMMI physics · 2017Article
- 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 · 2017Review
- Longitudinal monitoring of reconstructed activity concentration on a clinical time-of-flight PET/CT scanner.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2017Article
- Evaluation of Cross-CalibratedTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2016Article
- Long-term stability of carrier-added (68)Ge standardized solutions.Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine · 2016Article
- Quantitative Imaging in Cancer Clinical Trials.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2016Review
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigates measurement biases in longitudinal positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) studies that are due to instrumentation variability including human error. Improved estimation of variability between patient scans is of particular importance for assessing response to therapy and multicenter trials. We used National Institute of Standards and Technology-traceable calibration methodology for solid germanium-68/gallium-68 ((68)Ge/(68)Ga) sources used as surrogates for fluorine-18 ((18)F) in radionuclide activity calibrators. One cross-calibration kit was constructed for both dose calibrators and PET scanners using the same 9-month half-life batch of (68)Ge/(68)Ga in epoxy. Repeat measurements occurred in a local network of PET imaging sites to assess standardized uptake value (SUV) errors over time for six dose calibrators from two major manufacturers and for six PET/CT scanners from three major manufacturers. Bias in activity measures by dose calibrators ranged from -50% to 9% and was relatively stable over time except at one site that modified settings between measurements. Bias in activity concentration measures by PET scanners ranged from -27% to 13% with a median of 174 days between the six repeat scans (range, 29 to 226 days). Corresponding errors in SUV measurements ranged from -20% to 47%. SUV biases were not stable over time with longitudinal differences for individual scanners ranging from -11% to 59%. Bias in SUV measurements varied over time and between scanner sites. These results suggest that attention should be paid to PET scanner calibration for longitudinal studies and use of dose calibrator and scanner cross-calibration kits could be helpful for quality assurance and control.
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.