Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28623376›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2017

EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies.

Nicolas Aide, Charline Lasnon, Patrick Veit-Haibach, Terez Sera, Bernhard Sattler, Ronald Boellaard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 196 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
196citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

196 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Head-to-Head comparison of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Joint EANM-SNMMI guideline on the role of 2-[European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. EANM guideline on the role of 2-[European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021
    Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Evaluating the prognostic impact of multipleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Trial
  11. Straightforward PET phantom preparation usingAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Clinical impact ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  14. Diagnostic Value of Routine Delayed Pelvic Imaging for Patients with Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer UndergoingJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

136 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nicolas AideNuclear Medicine Department, University Hospital, Caen, France. aide-n@chu-caen.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9207-0847
Charline LasnonInserm U1086 ANTICIPE, Caen University, Caen, France.
Patrick Veit-HaibachDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Terez SeraNuclear Medicine Department, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Bernhard SattlerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Leipzig, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Ronald BoellaardDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

ARRA - ADOPT New Technologies for RDC/CDMSU01CA080098 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI SCHNALL, MITCHELL D. · 1999 to 2011
$182.7M
BIOSTATISTICS DATA MANAGEMENT CENTER FOR ACROINU01CA079778 · NCI · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI GATSONIS, CONSTANTINE A. · 1999 to 2011
$48.6M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can be used as diagnostic or prognostic tools (i.e. single measurement) or for therapy monitoring (i.e. longitudinal studies) in multicentre studies. Use of quantitative parameters, such as standardized uptake values (SUVs), metabolic active tumor volumes (MATVs) or total lesion glycolysis (TLG), in a multicenter setting requires that these parameters be comparable among patients and sites, regardless of the PET/CT system used. This review describes the motivations and the methodologies for quantitative PET/CT performance harmonization with emphasis on the EANM Research Ltd. (EARL) Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT accreditation program, one of the international harmonization programs aiming at using FDG PET as a quantitative imaging biomarker. In addition, future accreditation initiatives will be discussed. The validation of the EARL accreditation program to harmonize SUVs and MATVs is described in a wide range of tumor types, with focus on therapy assessment using either the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria or PET Evaluation Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), as well as liver-based scales such as the Deauville score. Finally, also presented in this paper are the results from a survey across 51 EARL-accredited centers reporting how the program was implemented and its impact on daily routine and in clinical trials, harmonization of new metrics such as MATV and heterogeneity features.

Indexed as

Multicenter Studies as TopicSocieties, MedicalHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasmsPositron-Emission TomographyReference StandardsDeauville scoreEARL accreditationEORTCHarmonizationMATVPERCISTPET/CTSUV

Identifiers

PMID28623376
PMCPMC5541084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.