ArticleRadiologia brasileira
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for classification of (18)F-NaF uptake on PET/CT.
Article in Radiologia brasileira. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pitfalls and artifacts in the interpretation of oncologic PET/CT of the chest.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the cutoff values established by ROC curves to classify (18)F-NaF uptake as normal or malignant. MATERIALS AND
methodsPET/CT images were acquired 1 hour after administration of 185 MBq of (18)F-NaF. Volumes of interest (VOIs) were drawn on three regions of the skeleton as follows: proximal right humerus diaphysis (HD), proximal right femoral diaphysis (FD) and first vertebral body (VB1), in a total of 254 patients, totalling 762 VOIs. The uptake in the VOIs was classified as normal or malignant on the basis of the radiopharmaceutical distribution pattern and of the CT images. A total of 675 volumes were classified as normal and 52 were classified as malignant. Thirty-five VOIs classified as indeterminate or nonmalignant lesions were excluded from analysis. The standardized uptake value (SUV) measured on the VOIs were plotted on an ROC curve for each one of the three regions. The area under the ROC (AUC) as well as the best cutoff SUVs to classify the VOIs were calculated. The best cutoff values were established as the ones with higher result of the sum of sensitivity and specificity.
resultsThe AUCs were 0.933, 0.889 and 0.975 for UD, FD and VB1, respectively. The best SUV cutoffs were 9.0 (sensitivity: 73%; specificity: 99%), 8.4 (sensitivity: 79%; specificity: 94%) and 21.0 (sensitivity: 93%; specificity: 95%) for UD, FD and VB1, respectively.
conclusionThe best cutoff value varies according to bone region of analysis and it is not possible to establish one value for the whole body.
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.