ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2015
A Clinical and Experimental Comparison of Time of Flight PET/MRI and PET/CT Systems.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open-source phantom with dedicated in-house software for image quality assurance in hybrid PET systems.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Prospective analysis of clinically significant prostate cancer detection with [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Multimodal phantoms for clinical PET/MRI.EJNMMI physics · 2021Review
- Effect of PET Image Reconstruction Techniques on Unexpected Aorta UptakeMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2019Article
- Impact of time-of-flight PET on quantification accuracy and lesion detection in simultaneousEJNMMI research · 2018Article
- Cross-calibration of the Siemens mMR: easily acquired accurate PET phantom measurements, long-term stability and reproducibility.EJNMMI physics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of the study was to compare image quality and quantitative accuracy of positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) and PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) systems with time of flight PET gantries, using phantom and clinical studies. PROCEDURES: Identical phantom experiments were performed on both systems. Calibration, uniformity, and standardized uptake value (SUV) recovery were measured. A clinical PET/CT versus PET/MRI comparison was performed using [(18)F]fluoromethylcholine ([(18)F]FCH).
resultsCalibration accuracy and image uniformity were comparable between systems. SUV recovery met EANM/EARL requirements on both scanners. Thirty-four lesions with comparable PET image quality were identified. Lesional SUVmax differences of 4 ± 26% between PET/MRI and PET/CT data were observed (R (2) = 0.79, slope = 1.02). In healthy tissues, PET/MRI-derived SUVs were 16 ± 11% lower than on PET/CT (R (2) = 0.98, slope = 0.86).
conclusionPET/MRI and PET/CT showed comparable performance with respect to calibration accuracy, image uniformity, and SUV recovery. [(18)F]FCH uptake values for both healthy tissues and lesions corresponded reasonably well between MR- and CT-based systems, but only in regions free of MR-based attenuation artifacts.
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.