ArticleEJNMMI physics2019
Image quality and detectability in Siemens Biograph PET/MRI and PET/CT systems-a phantom study.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Whole-body imaging for distant staging of bone chondrosarcoma: a systematic review.La Radiologia medica · 2025Pooled it
- Phantom-based optimization of [Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Reference tissue uptake of [18F]PSMA-1007 in positron emission tomography of recurrent prostate cancer.European radiology · 2026Article
- Assessing small-lesion detectability and acquisition time optimisation in silicon-detector-Based PET: a phantom study.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- PET/CT acquisition and processing protocols in the Netherlands.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Calculation of recovery coefficients for partial volume effect correction in PET/CT imaging using a customized anthropomorphic body phantom.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- Detection and quantification of small and low-uptake lesions for differentiated thyroid carcinoma using non-time-of-flight iodine-124 PET/MRI.Medical physics · 2025Article
- EMATA: a toolbox for the automatic extraction and modeling of arterial inputs for tracer kinetic analysis in [EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Comparison of the Accuracy of a Deep Learning Method for Lesion Detection in PET/CT and PET/MRI Images.Molecular imaging and biology · 2024Article
- Reduction of [EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Image quality evaluation for a clinical organ-targeted PET camera.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Monte Carlo investigation of PET [Heliyon · 2023Article
- Lesion Quantification Accuracy of DigitalJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023Article
- Image quality assessment along the one metre axial field-of-view of the total-body Biograph Vision Quadra PET/CT system forEJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Image quality evaluation of real low-dose breast PET.Japanese journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Optimization ofJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Hybrid total-body pet scanners-current status and future perspectives.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Review
- Construction of a Phantom for Image Quality Evaluation in PET/MRI System.Annals of nuclear cardiology · 2022Article
- A NIM PET/CT phantom for evaluating the PET image quality of micro-lesions and the performance parameters of CT.BMC medical imaging · 2021Article
- Molecular Imaging in Primary Staging of Prostate Cancer Patients: Current Aspects and Future Trends.Cancers · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe technology of modern positron emission tomography (PET) systems continuously improving, and with it the possibility to detect smaller lesions. Since first introduced in 2010, the number of hybrid PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems worldwide is constantly increasing. It is therefore important to assess and compare the image quality, in terms of detectability, between the PET/MRI and the well-established PET/computed tomography (CT) systems. For this purpose, a PET image quality phantom (Esser) with hot spheres, ranging from 4 to 20 mm in diameter, was prepared with fluorodeoxyglucose and sphere-to-background activity concentrations of 8:1 and 4:1, to mimic clinical conditions. The phantom was scanned on a PET/MRI and a PET/CT system for both concentrations to obtain contrast recovery coefficients (CRCs) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs), for a range of reconstruction settings. The detectability of the spheres was scored by three human observers for both systems and concentrations and all reconstructions. Furthermore, the impact of acquisition time on CNR and observer detectability was investigated.
resultsReconstructions applying point-spread-function modeling (and time-of-flight for the PET/CT) yielded the highest CRC and CNR in general, and PET/CT demonstrated slightly higher values than PET/MRI for most sphere sizes. CNR was dependent on reconstruction settings and was maximized for 2 iterations, a pixel size of less than 2 mm and a 4 mm Gaussian filter. Acquisition times of 97 s (PET/MRI) and 150 s (PET/CT) resulted in similar total net true counts. For these acquisition times, the smallest detected spheres by the human observers in the 8:1 activity concentration was the 6-mm sphere with PET/MRI (CNR = 5.6) and the 5-mm sphere with PET/CT (CNR = 5.5). With an acquisition time of 180 s, the 5-mm sphere was also detected with PET/MRI (CNR = 5.8). The 8-mm sphere was the smallest detected sphere in the 4:1 activity concentration for both systems.
conclusionIn this experimental study, similar detectability was found for the PET/MRI and the PET/CT, although for an increased acquisition time for the PET/MRI.
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.