ArticleMedical physics2017
Evaluation of the tumor registration error in biopsy procedures performed under real-time PET/CT guidance.
Article in Medical physics, 2017. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Augmenting CT-Guided Bone Biopsies UsingCancers · 2024Article
- [Progress in Image-planned and Real-time Image-guided Lung Cancer Biopsy in the Detection of Biomarkers].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2023Review
- Practice and prospects for PET/CT guided interventions.The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR), [and] Section of the Society of... · 2021Review
- Tumor Region Location and Classification Based on Fuzzy Logic and Region Merging Image Segmentation Algorithm.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- KRAS mutation effects on the 2-[18F]FDG PET uptake of colorectal adenocarcinoma metastases in the liver.EJNMMI research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to quantify tumor displacement during real-time PET/CT guided biopsy and to investigate correlations between tumor displacement and false-negative results.
methods19 patients who underwent real-time
resultsThe mean displacement of tissue around the needle between the pre-biopsy CT and the postneedle insertion CT was 5.1 mm (min = 1.1 mm, max = 10.9 mm and SD = 3.0 mm). For mean displacements larger than 7.2 mm, the biopsy cores gave false-negative results. Correcting pre-biopsy PET using the DVF improved the PET/CT registration in 8 of 11 cases.
conclusionsThe DVF obtained from DIR of the CT scans can be used for evaluation and correction of the error in needle placement with respect to the FDG-avid area. Misregistration between the pre-biopsy PET and the CT acquired with the needle in place was shown to correlate with false negative biopsy results.
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.