ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2016
Image quality of Zr-89 PET imaging in the Siemens microPET Focus 220 preclinical scanner.
Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2016. 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.
- Zr-89 Immuno-PET Targeting Ectopic ATP Synthase Enables In-Vivo Imaging of Tumor Angiogenesis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- Selection Criteria for Determination of Optimal Reconstruction Method for Cu-64 Trastuzumab Dosimetry on Siemens Inveon PET Scanner.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Investigation of Image Reconstruction Parameters of the Mediso nanoScan PC Small-Animal PET/CT Scanner for Two Different Positron Emitters Under NEMA NU 4-2008 Standards.Molecular imaging and biology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeZr-89 positron emission tomography (PET) is a valuable tool for understanding the biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of antibody-based therapeutics. We compared the image quality of Zr-89 PET and F-18 PET in the Siemens microPET Focus 220 preclinical scanner using different reconstruction methods. PROCEDURES: Image quality metrics were measured in various Zr-89 and F-18 PET phantoms, including the NEMA NU 4-2008 image quality phantom. Images were reconstructed using various algorithms.
resultsZr-89 PET had greater image noise, inferior spatial resolution, and greater spillover than F-18 PET, but comparable recovery coefficients for cylinders of various diameters. Of the reconstruction methods, OSEM3D resulted in the lowest noise, highest recovery coefficients, best spatial resolution, but also the greatest spillover. Scatter correction results were found to be sensitive to varying object sizes.
conclusionsZr-89 PET image quality was inferior to that of F-18, and no single reconstruction method was superior in all aspects of image quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26493052What 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.