ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2016
Do myocardial PET-MR and PET-CT FDG images provide comparable information?
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the qualitative and quantitative impacts of simple two-class vs multiple tissue-class MR-based attenuation correction for cardiac PET/MR.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
- Assessing time-of-flight signal-to-noise ratio gains within the myocardium and subsequent reductions in administered activity in cardiac PET studies.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019Article
- Does time-of-flight improve image quality in the heart?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019Article
- The effect of time-of-flight and point spread function modeling onJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018Article
- Hybrid positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance of the heart: current state of the art and future applications.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2018Review
- Differences in polar-map patterns using the novel technologies for myocardial perfusion imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Article
- MR/PET Imaging of the Cardiovascular System.JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2017Review
- PET/MR: Yet another Tesla?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Review
- The foundation layer of quantitative cardiac PET/MRI: Attenuation correction. Again.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Article
- Review of Cardiovascular Imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology in 2016. Part 1 of 2: Positron Emission Tomography, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Review
- Time to move to PET-MR for cardiovascular imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016Article
- Analysis of the 17-segment left ventricle model using generalized estimating equations.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016Article
- Recent Advances in Nuclear Cardiology.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough positron emission tomography PET-MR imaging is emerging into clinical practice, many aspects of this imaging technique such as attenuation correction have yet to be validated for myocardial imaging. Thus, it is uncertain whether PET-MR FDG images provide clinical information which is comparable to PET-CT FDG images. The study goal was to systematically compare relative myocardial FDG concentrations obtained from cardiac PET-MR images to those derived from same day PET-CT images.
methodsMyocardial FDG images of 27 patients undergoing PET-CT imaging, followed by PET-MR imaging 42 ± 13 minutes later as part of a prospective oncology study were analyzed. Mean segmental standardized uptake measurements (SUVmean) were obtained in each of the 17 standard myocardial segments and normalized to the brightest segment.
resultsNormalized segmental SUVmean values did not differ significantly between the PET-MR and PET-CT images (mean difference 0.002, P = .826). The specific segment was a marginally significant predictor of the differences (P = .057), with the largest difference in the anteroseptal basal segment.
conclusionsPET-MR, vis-à-vis PET-CT, does not significantly raise segmental uptake relative to the brightest segment, suggesting that PET-MR can be used similarly to PET-CT for applications where relative uptake is important.
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.