ArticleEJNMMI research2018
A new methodology to derive 3D kinetic parametric FDG PET images based on a mathematical approach integrating an error model of measurement.
Article in EJNMMI research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn FDG-PET, SUV images are hampered by large potential biases. Our aim was to develop an alternative method (ParaPET) to generate 3D kinetic parametric FDG-PET images easy to perform in clinical oncology.
methodsThe key points of our method are the use of a new error model of PET measurement extracted from a late dynamic PET acquisition of 15 min, centered over the lesion and an image-derived input function (IDIF). The 15-min acquisition is reconstructed to obtain five images of FDG mean activity concentration and images of its variance to model errors of PET measurement. Our approach is carried out on each voxel to derive 3D kinetic parameter images. ParaPET was evaluated and compared to Patlak analysis as a reference. Hunter and Barbolosi methods (Barbolosi-Bl: with blood samples or Barbolosi-Im: with IDIF) were also investigated and compared to Patlak. Our evaluation was carried on K
resultsThis parameter was obtained from 41 non-small cell lung cancer lesions associated with 4 to 5 blood samples per patient, required for the Patlak analysis. Compare to Patlak, the median relative difference and associated range (median; [min;max]) in K
conclusionNone of the four methodologies is yet ready to replace the Patlak approach, and further improvements are still required. Nevertheless, ParaPET remains a promising approach, offering a non-invasive alternative to methods based on multiple blood samples and only requiring a late PET acquisition. It allows deriving K
trial registrationNCT 02821936 ; May 2016.
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.