Trial reportEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2019
Prospective comparison of (4S)-4-(3-
Trial report 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. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular Imaging: Unveiling Metabolic Abnormalities in Pancreatic Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Clinical Utility ofMedComm · 2025Article
- Compact and cGMP-compliant automated synthesis of [EJNMMI radiopharmacy and chemistry · 2025Article
- Clinical [Cancers · 2024Article
- Is System xCancers · 2023Review
- Article
- Glutamatergic system components as potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets in cancer in non-neural organs.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Review
- Robust and Facile Automated Radiosynthesis of [Molecular imaging and biology · 2021Article
- The clinical application ofTranslational cancer research · 2021Review
- Overcoming Therapeutic Challenges for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma with xCT Inhibitors.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021Article
- Initial evaluation of (4S)-4-(3-[EJNMMI research · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose(4S)-4-(3-
methodsThe performance of FSPG in detecting PDAC metastases was compared with that of
resultsIn the rodent model, FSPG PET consistently found more PDAC metastases earlier than FDG PET. FSPG PET showed a trend for a higher sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy than FDG PET in detecting PDAC metastases in a patient-based analysis: 95.0%, 100.0% and 95.7%, and 90.0%, 66.7% and 90.0%, respectively. In a lesion-based analysis, FSPG PET identified significantly more PDAC metastases, especially in the liver, than FDG PET (109 vs. 95; P = 0.0001, 95% CI 4.9-14.6). The tumour-to-background ratios for FSPG and FDG uptake on positive scans were similar (FSPG 4.2 ± 4.3, FDG 3.6 ± 3.0; P = 0.44, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.48), despite a lower tumour maximum standardized uptake value in FSPG-avid lesions (FSPG 4.2 + 2.3, FDG 7.7 + 5.7; P = 0.002, 95% CI 0.70-4.10). Because of the lower physiological activity of FSPG in the liver, FSPG PET images of the liver are more easy to interpret than FDG PET images, and therefore the use of FSPG improves the detection of liver metastasis.
conclusionFSPG PET is superior to FDG PET in detecting metastasized PDAC, especially in the liver.
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.