ArticleEJNMMI research2019
Repeatability of [
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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Segmentation method comparison for baseline [EJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Value of PET radiomic features for diagnosis and reccurence prediction of newly diagnosed oral squamous cell carcinoma.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- 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
- PET radiomics in lung cancer: advances and translational challenges.EJNMMI physics · 2024Review
- Clinical Performance Comparison of a Long Versus a Short Axial Field-of-View PET/CT Using EARL-Compliant Reconstructions.Molecular imaging and biology · 2024Article
- Circulating T cell status and molecular imaging may predict clinical benefit of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade in oral cancer.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2024Article
- Four-dimensional quantitative analysis using FDG-PET in clinical oncology.Japanese journal of radiology · 2023Review
- The Prognostic and Diagnostic Value of [Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Combatting the effect of image reconstruction settings on lymphoma [EJNMMI research · 2022Article
- Effects of Tracer Uptake Time in Non-Small Cell Lung CancerJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2022Article
- Prognostic value of 11C-methionine volume-based PET parameters in IDH wild type glioblastoma.PloS one · 2022Article
- A systematic review and quality of reporting checklist for repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2021Review
- The expression of miRNA-216b is negatively correlated with 18F-FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Article
- Assessing immune organs onEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Observational
- One Versus Up-to-5 Lesion Measurements for Response Assessment by PERCIST in Patients with Lung Cancer.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Clinically feasible semi-automatic workflows for measuring metabolically active tumour volume in metastatic melanoma.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Plausibility and redundancy analysis to select FDG-PET textural features in non-small cell lung cancer.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Repeatability of two semi-automatic artificial intelligence approaches for tumor segmentation in PET.EJNMMI research · 2021Article
- Bone Metastases Are Measurable: The Role of Whole-Body MRI and Positron Emission Tomography.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Application of PET Tracers in Molecular Imaging for Breast Cancer.Current oncology reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.