Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30734113›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI research2019

Repeatability of [

Guilherme D Kolinger, David Vállez García, Gerbrand M Kramer, Virginie Frings, Egbert F Smit, Adrianus J de Langen, Rudi A J O Dierckx, Otto S Hoekstra, Ronald Boellaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. The Prognostic and Diagnostic Value of [Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Effects of Tracer Uptake Time in Non-Small Cell Lung CancerJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Assessing immune organs onEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021
    Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Guilherme D KolingerUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
David Vállez GarcíaUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Gerbrand M KramerAmsterdam University Medical Centers, location VU Medical Center, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Virginie FringsAmsterdam University Medical Centers, location VU Medical Center, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Egbert F SmitAmsterdam University Medical Centers, location VU Medical Center, Department of Pulmonary Disease, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Adrianus J de LangenAmsterdam University Medical Centers, location VU Medical Center, Department of Pulmonary Disease, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rudi A J O DierckxUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Otto S HoekstraAmsterdam University Medical Centers, location VU Medical Center, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ronald BoellaardUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands. r.boellaard@vumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTotal metabolic active tumour volume (TMATV) and total tumour burden (TTB) are increasingly studied as prognostic and predictive factors in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. In this study, we investigated the repeatability of TMATV and TTB as function of uptake interval, positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) image reconstruction settings, and lesion delineation method. We used six lesion delineation methods, four direct PET image-derived delineations and two based on a majority vote approach, i.e. intersection between two or more delineations (MV2) and between three or more delineations (MV3). To evaluate the accuracy of those methods, they were compared with a reference delineation obtained from the consensus of the segmentations performed by three experienced observers. Ten NSCLC patients underwent two baseline whole-body [

resultsBased on the Jaccard index with the reference delineation, the MV2 lesion delineation method was the most successful method for automated lesion segmentation. The best overall repeatability (lowest repeatability coefficient, RC) was found for TTB from 90 min of tracer uptake scans reconstructed with EARL compliant settings and delineated with 41% of lesion's maximum SUV method (RC = 11%). In most cases, TMATV and TTB repeatability were not significantly affected by changes in tracer uptake time or reconstruction settings. However, some lesion delineation methods had significantly different repeatability when applied to the same images.

conclusionsThis study suggests that under some circumstances TMATV and TTB repeatability are significantly affected by the lesion delineation method used. Performing the delineation with a majority vote approach improves reliability and does not hamper repeatability, regardless of acquisition and reconstruction settings. It is therefore concluded that by using a majority vote based tumour segmentation approach, TMATV and TTB in NSCLC patients can be measured with high reliability and precision.

Indexed as

FDG PET/CTMajority voteMetabolic active tumour volumeNSCLCRepeatabilityTotal tumour burdenTracer uptake intervalTumour delineation

Identifiers

PMID30734113
PMCPMC6367490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.