ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Impact of image reconstruction methods on quantitative accuracy and variability of FDG-PET volumetric and textural measures in solid tumors.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Impact of harmonization and oversampling methods on radiomics analysis of multi-center imbalanced datasets: application to PET-based prediction of lung cancer subtypes.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- The effects of various penalty parameter values in Q.Clear algorithm for rectal cancer detection onEJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- The reproducibility of MTV and TLG of soft tissue tumors calculated by FDG-PET: Comparison between the lower limit by the fixed value SUV 2.5 and that value by 30% of SUVmax.Japanese journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Multicenter quantitativeQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Effects of Tracer Uptake Time in Non-Small Cell Lung CancerJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2022Article
- Impact of time of flight and point spread function on quantitative parameters of lung lesions inBMC medical imaging · 2021Article
- Tumor volume-adapted SUVJapanese journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Predicting EGFR mutation subtypes in lung adenocarcinoma usingTranslational lung cancer 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
6 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to assess the impact of different image reconstruction methods on PET/CT quantitative volumetric and textural parameters and the inter-reconstruction variability of these measurements.
methodsA total of 25 oncology patients with 65 lesions (between 2017 and 2018) and a phantom with signal-to-background ratios (SBR) of 2 and 4 were included. All images were retrospectively reconstructed using OSEM, PSF only, TOF only, and TOFPSF with 3-, 5-, and 6.4-mm Gaussian filters. The metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were measured. The relative percent error (ΔMTV and ΔTLG) with respect to true values, volume recovery coefficients, and Dice similarity coefficient, as well as inter-reconstruction variabilities were quantified and assessed. In clinical scans, textural features (coefficient of variation, skewness, and kurtosis) were determined.
resultsAmong reconstruction methods, mean ΔMTV differed by -163.5 ± 14.1% to 6.3 ± 6.2% at SBR2 and -42.7 ± 36.7% to 8.6 ± 3.1 at SBR4. Dice similarity coefficient significantly increased by increasing SBR from 2 to 4, ranging from 25.7 to 83.4% between reconstruction methods. Mean ΔTLG was -12.0 ± 1.7 for diameters > 17 mm and -17.8 ± 7.8 for diameters ≤ 17 mm at SBR4. It was -31.7 ± 4.3 for diameters > 17 mm and -14.2 ± 5.8 for diameters ≤ 17 mm at SBR2. Textural features were prone to variations by reconstruction methods (p < 0.05).
conclusionsInter-reconstruction variability was significantly affected by the target size, SBR, and cut-off threshold value. In small tumors, inter-reconstruction variability was noteworthy, and quantitative parameters were strongly affected. TOFPSF reconstruction with small filter size produced greater improvements in performance and accuracy in quantitative PET/CT imaging. KEY POINTS: • Quantitative volumetric PET evaluation is critical for the analysis of tumors. • However, volumetric and textural evaluation is prone to important variations according to different image reconstruction settings. • TOFPSF reconstruction with small filter size improves quantitative analysis.
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.