ArticleEJNMMI research2016
Impact of attenuation correction on clinical [(18)F]FDG brain PET in combined PET/MRI.
Article in EJNMMI research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- The impact of MR-based attenuation correction in spinal cord FDG-PET/MR imaging for neurological studies.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Quantitative and clinical impact of MRI-based attenuation correction methods in [EJNMMI research · 2019Article
- Multiparametric Evaluation in Differentiating Glioma Recurrence from Treatment-Induced Necrosis Using SimultaneousAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2017Article
- Visual detection of regional brain hypometabolism in cognitively impaired patients is independent of positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance attenuation correction method.World journal of nuclear medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn PET/MRI, linear photon attenuation coefficients for attenuation correction (AC) cannot be directly derived, and cortical bone is, so far, usually not considered. This results in an underestimation of the average PET signal in PET/MRI. Recently introduced MR-AC methods predicting bone information from anatomic MRI or proton density-weighted zero-time imaging may solve this problem in the future. However, there is an ongoing debate if the current error is acceptable for clinical use and/or research.
methodsWe examined this feature for [(18)F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) brain PET in 13 patients with clinical signs of dementia or movement disorders who subsequently underwent PET/CT and PET/MRI on the same day. Multiple MR-AC approaches including a CT-derived AC were applied.
resultsThe resulting PET data was compared to the CT-derived standard regarding the quantification error and its clinical impact. On a quantitative level, -11.9 to +2 % deviations from the CT-AC standard were found. These deviations, however, did not translate into a systematic diagnostic error. This, as overall patterns of hypometabolism (which are decisive for clinical diagnostics), remained largely unchanged.
conclusionsDespite a quantitative error by the omission of bone in MR-AC, clinical quality of brain [(18)F]FDG is not relevantly affected. Thus, brain [(18)F]FDG PET can already, even now with suboptimal MR-AC, be utilized for clinical routine purposes, even though the MR-AC warrants improvement.
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.