Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29250567›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2018

Multicenter survey of PET/CT protocol parameters that affect standardized uptake values.

Darrin Byrd, Rebecca Christopfel, John Buatti, Eduardo Moros, Sadek Nehmeh, Adam Opanowski, Paul Kinahan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Commercially Competitive Vendor-Agnostic Image Reconstruction Could Be a Leap Forward for PET Harmonization.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
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

7 authors.

Darrin ByrdUniversity of Washington, Department of Radiology, Seattle, Washington, United States.
Rebecca ChristopfelUniversity of Washington, Department of Radiology, Seattle, Washington, United States.
John BuattiUniversity of Iowa, Department of Radiation Oncology, Iowa City, Iowa, United States.
Eduardo MorosMoffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, United States.
Sadek NehmehCornell University, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, United States.
Adam OpanowskiAmerican College of Radiology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Paul KinahanUniversity of Washington, Department of Radiology, Seattle, Washington, United States.

Funding

Project-006U10CA180820 · NCI · ECOG-ACRIN MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION · PI Peter J ODwyer, MITCHELL D. SCHNALL · 2014 to 2026
$167.6M
Advanced PET/CT Imaging for Improving Clinical TrialsU01CA148131 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI KINAHAN, PAUL E., LINDEN, HANNAH M · 2010 to 2019
$6.0M
Quantitative Imaging to Assess Response in Cancer Therapy TrialsU01CA140206 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI BUATTI, JOHN M, CASAVANT, THOMAS L. · 2010 to 2019
$5.8M
Radiomics of NSCLCU01CA143062 · NCI · H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CTR & RES INST · PI GILLIES, ROBERT J., SCHABATH, MATTHEW B. · 2010 to 2020
$5.7M
CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001ENCI NIH HHS U01 CA140206NCI NIH HHS U01 CA143062NCI NIH HHS U01 CA148131NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180820
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical trials that evaluate cancer treatments may benefit from positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, which for many cancers can discriminate between effective and ineffective treatments. However, the image metrics used to quantify disease and evaluate treatment may be biased by many factors related to clinical protocols and PET system settings, many of which are site- and/or manufacturer-specific. An observational study was conducted using two surveys that were designed to record key sources of bias and variability in PET imaging. These were distributed to hospitals across the United States. The first round of surveys was designed and distributed by the American College of Radiology's Centers of Quantitative Imaging Excellence program in 2011. The second survey expanded on the first and was completed by the National Cancer Institute's Quantitative Imaging Network. Sixty-three sites responded to the first survey and 36 to the second. Key imaging parameters varied across participating sites. The range of reported methods for image acquisition and reconstruction suggests that signal biases are not matched between sites. Patient preparation was also inconsistent, potentially contributing additional variability. For multicenter clinical trials, efforts to control biases through standardization of imaging procedures should precede patient measurements.

Indexed as

multicenter PETPET clinical trialPET quantitationstandardized uptake value

Identifiers

PMID29250567
PMCPMC5722234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.