ArticleNuclear medicine communications2015
Optimizing an 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG cocktail for PET assessment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Article in Nuclear medicine communications, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging role of integrated PET-MRI in osteoarthritis.Skeletal radiology · 2021Review
- Clinical perspectives for the use of total body PET/CT.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundPET/computed tomography (CT) imaging with the sodium-(F)-fluoride/2-(F)-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (F-NaF/F-FDG) cocktail has been proposed for patients with osseous metastases. This work aimed to optimize the cocktail composition for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was carried out on six patients with mCRPC, with a total of 26 analyzed lesions. The patients were injected with F-NaF and F-FDG at separate time points. Dynamic PET/CT imaging recorded the uptake time course for both the tracers into osseous metastases. F-NaF and F-FDG uptakes were decoupled by kinetic analysis, which enabled calculation of F-NaF and F-FDG standardized uptake values (SUVs) images. Peak, mean, and total SUVs were evaluated for both tracers and all visible lesions. The F-NaF/F-FDG cocktail was optimized under the assumption that the contribution of both tracers to image formation is equal. SUV images from PET/CT imaging with a combination of F-NaF and F-FDG were generated for cocktail compositions with an F-NaF : F-FDG ratio varying from 1 : 8 to 1 : 2.
resultsThe F-NaF peak and mean SUVs were on average four to five times higher than the F-FDG peak and mean SUVs, with an interlesion coefficient of variations of 20%. The total SUV for F-NaF was on average seven times higher than that for F-FDG. When the F-NaF : F-FDG ratio changed from 1 : 8 to 1 : 2, the typical SUV on the generated PET images increased by 50%, whereas the change in the uptake visual pattern was hardly noticeable.
conclusionF-NaF and F-FDG in the cocktail contribute equally to image formation when the F-NaF : F-FDG ratio is 1 : 5. Therefore, we propose this ratio as the optimal cocktail composition for mCRPC patients. We also urge to strictly control the cocktail composition during any F-NaF/F-FDG cocktail PET/CT examination.
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.