ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2015
Retrospective quality control review of FDG scans in the imaging sub-study of PALETTE EORTC 62072/VEG110727: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mitigating SUV uncertainties using total body PET imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- A review of harmonization strategies for quantitative PET.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2023Review
- The imaging quantification of multiple organs by dynamicInternational journal of medical sciences · 2022Article
- Test-retest repeatability of [Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2020Article
- Quality Assessment in FDG-PET/CT Imaging of Head-and-Neck Cancer: One Home Run Is Better Than Two Doubles.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- An account of data entry inconsistencies and their impact on positron emission tomography quantification.Medicine · 2018Article
- EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation - summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018Article
- Quantification: there is more to worry about than good scanner hardware and reliable calibration.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Article
- Guidelines for quality control of PET/CT scans in a multicenter clinical study.EJNMMI physics · 2017Article
- Using PET for therapy monitoring in oncological clinical trials: challenges ahead.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2017Review
- Repeatability of SUV in OncologicJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2017Review
- An investigation of the relation between tumor-to-liver ratio (TLR) and tumor-to-blood standard uptake ratio (SUR) in oncological FDG PET.EJNMMI research · 2016Article
- Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2016Article
- Patient's weight: a neglected cause of variability in SUV measurements? A survey from an EARL accredited PET centre in 513 patients.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 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
11 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose(18)F-Labelled fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) can detect early changes in tumour metabolism and may be a useful quantitative imaging biomarker (QIB) for prediction of disease stabilization, response and duration of progression-free survival (PFS). Standardization of imaging procedures is a prerequisite, especially in multicentre clinical trials. In this study we reviewed the quality of FDG scans and compliance with the imaging guideline (IG) in a phase III clinical trial.
methodsForty-four cancer patients were enroled in an imaging sub-study of a randomized international multicentre trial. FDG scan had to be performed at baseline and 10-14 days after treatment start. The image transmittal forms (ITFs) and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) [1] standard headers were analysed for compliance with the IG. Mean liver standardized uptake values (LSUVmean) were measured as recommended by positron emission tomography (PET) Response Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0 (PERCIST) [2].
resultsOf 88 scans, 81 were received (44 patients); 36 were properly anonymized; 77/81 serum glucose values submitted, all but one within the IG. In 35/44 patients both scans were of sufficient visual quality. In 22/70 ITFs the reported UT differed by >1 min from the DICOM headers (max. difference 1 h 4 min). Based on the DICOM, UT compliance for both scans was 31.4%. LSUVmean was fairly constant for the 11 patients with UT compliance: 2.30 ± 0.33 at baseline and 2.27 ± 0.48 at follow-up (FU). Variability substantially increased for the subjects with unacceptable UT (11 patients): 2.27 ± 1.04 at baseline and 2.18 ± 0.83 at FU.
conclusionThe high attrition number of patients due to low compliance with the IG compromised the quantitative assessment of the predictive value for early response monitoring. This emphasizes the need for better regulated procedures in imaging departments, which may be achieved by education of involved personnel or efforts towards regulations. LSUVmean could be monitored to assess quality and compliance in an FDG PET/CT study.
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.