ArticleEJNMMI physics2018
Impact of PET reconstruction protocols on quantification of lesions that fulfil the PERCIST lesion inclusion criteria.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- PET-guided therapy: synergies, strategies, and future directions in external beam radiation therapy and radiopharmaceutical therapy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Innovations in clinical PET image reconstruction: advances in Bayesian penalized likelihood algorithm and deep learning.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Review
- Impact of patient size on image quality of OSEM3D and BSREM reconstructions in [EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- High concordance of PET-CT treatment response evaluation according to PERCIST 1.0 when comparing images reconstructed with OSEM vs. BSREM.Clinical physiology and functional imaging · 2025Article
- Preliminary protocol for measuring the reproducibility and accuracy of flow values on digital PET/CT systems in [EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- β1600 Q.Clear Digital Reconstruction of [Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of quantitative whole body PET parameters on [Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Article
- Principal Component Analysis Applied to Radiomics Data: Added Value for Separating Benign from Malignant Solitary Pulmonary Nodules.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- The effects of various penalty parameter values in Q.Clear algorithm for rectal cancer detection onEJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Multicenter quantitativeQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Harmonization of standard uptake values across different positron emission tomography/computed tomography systems and different reconstruction algorithms: validation in oncology patients.EJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Comparison of Image Quality and Quantification Parameters between Q.Clear and OSEM Reconstruction Methods on FDG-PET/CT Images in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer.Journal of imaging · 2023Article
- Principal component analysis of texture features derived from FDG PET images of melanoma lesions.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- EARL compliance measurements on the biograph vision Quadra PET/CT system with a long axial field of view.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Small lesion depiction and quantification accuracy of oncologicalEJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- A method for evaluation of patient-specific lean body mass from limited-coverage CT images and its application in PERCIST: comparison with predictive equation.EJNMMI physics · 2021Article
- Article
- SNMMI Procedure Standard/EANM Practice Guideline on PediatricJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2021Article
- Bone Metastases Are Measurable: The Role of Whole-Body MRI and Positron Emission Tomography.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare liver and oncologic lesion standardized uptake values (SUV) obtained through two different reconstruction protocols, GE's newest clinical lesion detection protocol (Q.Clear) and the EANM Research Ltd (EARL) harmonization protocol, and to assess the clinical relevance of potential differences and possible implications for daily clinical practice using the PERCIST lesional inclusion criteria. NEMA phantom recovery coefficients (RC) and SUV normalized for lean body mass (LBM), referred to as SUV normalized for LBM (SUL), of liver and lesion volumes of interest were compared between the two reconstruction protocols. Head-to-toe PET/CT examinations and raw data from 64 patients were retrospectively retrieved. PET image reconstruction was carried out twice: once optimized for quantification, complying with EARL accreditation requirements, and once optimized for lesion detection, according to GE's Q.Clear reconstruction settings.
resultsThe two reconstruction protocols showed different NEMA phantom RC values for different sphere sizes. Q.Clear values were always highest and exceeded the EARL accreditation maximum for smaller spheres. Comparison of liver SUL
conclusionsFor treatment response assessment using PERCIST criteria, the harmonization reconstruction protocol should be used as the lesion detection reconstruction protocol using resolution recovery systematically overestimates true SUL values.
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.