ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2019
Digital vs. analog PET/CT: intra-subject comparison of the SUVmax in target lesions and reference regions.
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 34 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
34 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long Axial Field-of-view PET: A New Era of Quantitative PET Imaging for Theranostic Applications in Clinic.PET clinics · 2025Review
- Clinical Performance of Analog and Digital 18F-FDG PET/CT in Pediatric Epileptogenic Zone Localization: Preliminary Results.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- New semiquantitative parameters in digital [EJNMMI reports · 2025Article
- Revisiting baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters: Key considerations for prognostic evaluation in primary CNS lymphoma.Neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Long-axial field-of-view PET/CT improves radiomics feature reliability.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- The impact of long axial field of view (LAFOV) PET on oncologic imaging.European journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Challenging the significance of SUV-based parameters in a large-scale retrospective study on lung lesions.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Article
- The clinical acceptability of short versus long duration acquisitions for head and neck cancer using long-axial field-of-view PET/CT: a retrospective evaluation.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Simultaneous evaluation of brain metastasis and thoracic cancer using semiconductorAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2024Article
- Comparative study of physiological FDG uptake in small structures between silicon photomultiplier-based PET and conventional PET.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of Digital versus AnalogDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Investigating the influence of long-axial versus short-axial field of view PET/CT on stage migration in lymphoma and non-small cell lung cancer.Nuclear medicine communications · 2023Article
- Long-axial field-of-view PET/CT: perspectives and review of a revolutionary development in nuclear medicine based on clinical experience in over 7000 patients.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023Review
- 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
- Enhancement ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The influence of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty and interrater reliability in [European radiology · 2021Article
- Moving the goalposts while scoring-the dilemma posed by new PET technologies.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Clinical performance of long axial field of view PET/CT: a head-to-head intra-individual comparison of the Biograph Vision Quadra with the Biograph Vision PET/CT.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of sequential PET/MRI using a newly developed mobile PET system for brain imaging.Japanese journal of radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to assess whether digital photon counting technology in digital PET/CT influences the quantification of SUVmax in target lesions and regions of reference compared to analog PET/CT before an interchangeable use of either system in follow up studies.
methodsFrom January to June of 2018, 100 oncological patients underwent successive PET/CT imaging with digital and analog systems in the same day. Fifty-eight patients underwent analog imaging first and digital imaging thereafter, and 42 patients the other way round. SUVmax was measured in reference regions (liver and mediastinal blood pool) and in the most metabolically active target lesion in each patient. According to the sequence order of PET/CT acquisition, two groups of SUVmax values were obtained, i.e. group 1: analog PET/CT performed first; group 2: digital PET/CT performed first.
resultsMean SUVmax in the total sample (regardless of the order of PET/CT acquisition) in the target lesions with the analog PET/CT was 8.14 ± 6.39 and the digital 9.97 ± 6.14 (P = 0.000). Total mean SUVmax in the liver with the analog was 4.39 ± 2.59 and the digital 4.46 ± 3.18 (P = 0.477). Total mean SUVmax in the mediastinal blood pool with the analog was 2.30 ± 0.67 and the digital 2.54 ± 0.74 (P = 0.000). Group 1: mean SUVmax in the target lesions with the analog system was 6.64 ± 4.71 and the digital 9.48 ± 5.60 (P = 0.000). Mean liver SUVmax with the analog was 4.70 ± 2.90 and the digital 4.80 ± 3.72 (P = 0.088). Mediastinal blood pool SUVmax with the analog was 2.33 ± 0.66 and the digital 2.45 ± 0.73 (P = 0.041). Group 2: mean SUVmax in target lesions with the digital system was 10.63 ± 6.88 and the analog 10.16 ± 7.76 (P = 0.046). Mean liver SUVmax with the digital was 3.99 ± 2.20 and the analog 3.96 ± 2.04 (P = 0.218). Mediastinal blood pool SUVmax with the digital was 2.66 ± 0.75 and the analog 2.27 ± 0.68 (P = 0.000). No significant differences between both time delays were found.
conclusionsImproved photon counting technology in the digital PET/CT, and the effect of delayed increased uptake and retention significantly increases SUVmax values. This has to be taken into account before interchangeable use of either system in follow up studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30617960What 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.