ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2015
NEMA NU 4-Optimized Reconstructions for Therapy Assessment in Cancer Research with the Inveon Small Animal PET/CT System.
Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of Imaging Small Animals on a 360° Whole-Body Cadmium Zinc Telluride SPECT Camera: a Phantom Study.Molecular imaging and biology · 2022Article
- Selection Criteria for Determination of Optimal Reconstruction Method for Cu-64 Trastuzumab Dosimetry on Siemens Inveon PET Scanner.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Performance Evaluation of a Dedicated Preclinical PET/CT System for the Assessment of Mineralization Process in a Mouse Model of Atherosclerosis.Molecular imaging and biology · 2018Article
- [Theranostics · 2018Article
- Oxygen-15 labeled COEJNMMI research · 2017Article
- Image quality of Zr-89 PET imaging in the Siemens microPET Focus 220 preclinical scanner.Molecular imaging and biology · 2016Article
- Quantifying and correcting for tail vein extravasation in small animal PET scans in cancer research: is there an impact on therapy assessment?EJNMMI research · 2015Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe compared conventional filtered back-projection (FBP), two-dimensional-ordered subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) and maximum a posteriori (MAP) NEMA NU 4-optimized reconstructions for therapy assessment. PROCEDURES: Varying reconstruction settings were used to determine the parameters for optimal image quality with two NEMA NU 4 phantom acquisitions. Subsequently, data from two experiments in which nude rats bearing subcutaneous tumors had received a dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor were reconstructed with the NEMA NU 4-optimized parameters. Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare mean standardized uptake value (SUV(mean)) variations among groups.
resultsAll NEMA NU 4-optimized reconstructions showed the same 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose ([(18)F]FDG) kinetic patterns and detected a significant difference in SUV(mean) relative to day 0 between controls and treated groups for all time points with comparable p values.
conclusionIn the framework of therapy assessment in rats bearing subcutaneous tumors, all algorithms available on the Inveon system performed equally.
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.