ArticleClinical nuclear medicine2015
Factors that affect PERCIST-defined test-retest comparability: an exploration of feasibility in routine clinical practice.
Article in Clinical nuclear medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radioembolization-Induced Changes in Hepatic [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Test-Retest Variability in Lesion SUV and Lesion SUR inJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the factors affecting the comparability of F-FDG PET/CT scans using the PERSIST criteria for treatment response evaluation in a clinical PET/CT unit. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients diagnosed with esophageal cancer were assessed for treatment response by comparing 2 F-FDG PET/CT scans, at baseline (PET 1) and 1 month after the end of induction chemoradiation (PET 2). According to the PERCIST recommendations, patients with mean SUV normalized by the lean body mass within reference volume of interest that changed less than 0.3 unit and less than 20% were deemed as comparable. Absolute differences of body weight, blood glucose level, activity of F-FDG, and uptake time between the 2 scans were computed. Binary logistic regression was used to identify the predictive factors, and receiver operating characteristic curves were used for thresholds. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsSixty-nine subjects were identified. The mean (SD) values at PET 0 and PET 2 were 5.9 (1.04) mmol/L and 6.2 (1.06) mmol/L (P = 0.013), 54.6 (10.0 kg) and 53.3 (10.3 kg) (P = 0.013), 7.7 (1.3 mCi) and 7.6 (1.5 mCi) (P = 0.349), as well as 74.2 (12.4) minutes and 73.0 (12.3) minutes (P = 0.539), for blood glucose level, body weight, injected activity, and uptake time, respectively. Seventeen (24.6%) failed to match the PERCIST-defined comparability criteria. Case-based discrepancies (mean [SD]) were 0.76 (0.62) mmol/L, 3.4 (2.9) kg, 0.8 (0.7) mCi, and 11.7 (9.8) minutes for blood glucose, body weight, injected activity, and uptake time, respectively, of which only uptake time significantly affected comparability (P = 0.046; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.12), with a limit of 2.2-minute discrepancy identified as the requirement for 100% comparability.
conclusionsUptake time had the strongest effect on PERCIST-defined comparability. Therefore, for response assessment scans, reference to initial scans for determination of optimal uptake time is recommended.
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.