ArticleEJNMMI research2018
Diagnostic implications of a small-voxel reconstruction for loco-regional lymph node characterization in breast cancer patients using FDG-PET/CT.
Article in EJNMMI research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic accuracy in NSCLC lymph node staging with Total-Body and conventional PET/CT.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Leveraging small voxel with optimal acquisition time for [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Phantom study and clinical application of total-bodyEJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Small lesion depiction and quantification accuracy of oncologicalEJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Small-voxel reconstructions significantly influence SUVs in PET imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Article
- Reply to the letter.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Article
- Implications of reconstruction protocol for histo-biological characterisation of breast cancers using FDG-PET radiomics.EJNMMI research · 2018Article
- Optimization of a dedicated protocol using a small-voxel PSF reconstruction for head-and-neckEJNMMI research · 2018Article
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
backgroundWe evaluated the diagnostic implications of a small-voxel reconstruction for lymph node characterization in breast cancer patients, using state-of-the-art FDG-PET/CT. We included 69 FDG-PET/CT scans from breast cancer patients. PET data were reconstructed using standard 4 × 4 × 4 mm
resultsSixty-one benign and 169 malignant lymph nodes were included. Visual evaluation accuracy was 73% (sensitivity 67%, specificity 89%) on standard-voxel images and 77% (sensitivity 78%, specificity 74%) on small-voxel images (p = 0.13). Across malignant nodes visualised on PET/CT, the small-voxel score was more often correct compared with the standard-voxel score (89 vs. 76%, p < 0.001). In benign nodes, the standard-voxel score was more often correct (89 vs. 74%, p = 0.04). Quantitative data were based on the 61 benign and 148 malignant lymph nodes visualised on PET/CT. SUVs and TB
conclusionsSmall-voxel PET/CT improves the sensitivity of visual lymph node characterization and provides a higher detection rate of malignant lymph nodes. However, small-voxel PET/CT also introduced more false-positive results in benign nodes. Across all nodes, differences in accuracy were non-significant. Quantitatively, small-voxel images require higher cut-off values. Readers have to adapt their reference standards.
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.