ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2019
Why harmonization is needed when using FDG PET/CT as a prognosticator: demonstration with EARL-compliant SUV as an independent prognostic factor in lung cancer.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prognostic value ofFrontiers in immunology · 2022Pooled it
- Clinical Robustness of FDG-PET/CT Quantitative Metrics Post-Harmonization in a Multicenter, Cross-Scanner Setting.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Proposal for novel definition of radiologically less-invasive clinical stage IA solid predominant lung adenocarcinoma using the maximum standardized uptake value.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of anJCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Quantitative PSMA-PET parameters in localized prostate cancer: prognostic and potential predictive value.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Enhancing Interoperability and Harmonisation of Nuclear Medicine Image Data and Associated Clinical Data.Nuklearmedizin. Nuclear medicine · 2023Review
- Comparative analysis of batch correction methods for FDG PET/CT using metabolic radiogenomic data of lung cancer patients.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A machine learning tool to improve prediction of mediastinal lymph node metastases in non-small cell lung cancer using routinely obtainable [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Multicenter quantitativeQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- A review of harmonization strategies for quantitative PET.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2023Review
- Prediction of the Presence of Targetable Molecular Alteration(s) with Clinico-MetabolicDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- What validation tests can be done by the clinical medical physicist while waiting for the standardization of quantitative SPECT/CT imaging?EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Comparison between tumour metabolism derived fromQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- Radiomics model of dual-time 2-[European radiology · 2021Article
- Moving the goalposts while scoring-the dilemma posed by new PET technologies.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Article
- Harmonized pretreatment quantitative volume-based FDG-PET/CT parameters for prognosis of stage I-III breast cancer: Multicenter study.Oncotarget · 2021Article
- Asphericity of tumor FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer: reproducibility and implications for harmonization in multicenter studies.EJNMMI research · 2020Article
- Maximum standardized uptake value of primary tumor (SUVmax_PT) and horizontal range between two most distant PET-positive lymph nodes predict patient outcome in inoperable stage III NSCLC patients after chemoradiotherapy.Translational lung cancer research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo determine EARL-compliant prognostic SUV thresholds in a mature cohort of patients with locally advanced NSCLC, and to demonstrate how detrimental it is to use a threshold determined on an older-generation PET system with a newer PET/CT machine, and vice versa, or to use such a threshold with non-harmonized multicentre pooled data. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a single-centre retrospective study including 139 consecutive stage IIIA-IIIB patients. PET data were acquired as per the EANM guidelines and reconstructed with unfiltered point spread function (PSF) reconstruction. Subsequently, a 6.3 mm Gaussian filter was applied using the EQ.PET (Siemens Healthineers) methodology to meet the EANM/EARL harmonizing standards (PSF
resultsMedian follow-up was 28 months (1-104 months). For the whole population, the estimated overall survival rate at 36 months was 0.39 [0.31-0.47]. The optimal SUV
conclusionThe present study provides the PET community with an EARL-compliant SUV
Indexed as
Identifiers
30218317What 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.