ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2016
Evaluation of Cross-Calibrated
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Evaluation of primary breast cancers using dedicated breast PET and whole-body PET.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- [18 F]-Fluoroestradiol PET (FES-PET) and [18 F] Flurodeoxyglucose PET (FDG-PET) Imaging May Aid in Managing Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Lobular Breast Cancer.Molecular imaging and biology · 2025Article
- Fluoroestradiol (FES) and Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET imaging in patients with ER+, HER2-positive or HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Repeatability ofEJNMMI research · 2024Article
- Animal Models and Their Role in Imaging-Assisted Co-Clinical Trials.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Review
- Current status and future of targeted peptide receptor radionuclide positron emission tomography imaging and therapy of gastroenteropancreatic-neuroendocrine tumors.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Test-Retest Reproducibility ofJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2019Article
- Bias in PET Images of Solid Phantoms Due to CT-Based Attenuation Correction.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2019Article
- Measuring temporal stability of positron emission tomography standardized uptake value bias using long-lived sources in a multicenter network.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2018Article
- Performance assessment of diffuse optical spectroscopic imaging instruments in a 2-year multicenter breast cancer trialJournal of biomedical optics · 2017Article
- Qualification of National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers for Quantitative PET/CT Imaging in Clinical Trials.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2017Review
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
Abstract
Quantitative PET imaging is an important tool for clinical trials evaluating the response of cancers to investigational therapies. The standardized uptake value, used as a quantitative imaging biomarker, is dependent on multiple parameters that may contribute bias and variability. The use of long-lived, sealed PET calibration phantoms offers the advantages of known radioactivity activity concentration and simpler use than aqueous phantoms. We evaluated scanner and dose calibrator sources from two batches of commercially available kits, together at a single site and distributed across a local multicenter PET imaging network. We found that radioactivity concentration was uniform within the phantoms. Within the regions of interest drawn in the phantom images, coefficients of variation of voxel values were less than 2%. Across phantoms, coefficients of variation for mean signal were close to 1%. Biases of the standardized uptake value estimated with the kits varied by site and were seen to change in time by approximately ±5%. We conclude that these biases cannot be assumed constant over time. The kits provide a robust method to monitor PET scanner and dose calibrator biases, and resulting biases in standardized uptake values.
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.