ArticleThe British journal of radiology2020
Impact of different metal artifact reduction techniques on attenuation correction in 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Titanium and Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polyetheretherketone Spinal Implants in Postoperative Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: A Comprehensive Review of Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Photon-counting CT for bullet material differentiation: applications in forensic radiology.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Impact of Different Metal Artifact Reduction Techniques on Attenuation Correction of Normal Organs inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Pitfalls on PET/CT Due to Artifacts and Instrumentation.Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2021Review
- Quantitative Effect of Metal Artefact Reduction on CT-based attenuation correction in FDG PET/CT in patients with hip prosthesis.EJNMMI physics · 2021Article
- FDG-CT/PET false positive case in hip prosthesis: a clue to avoid error.Radiology case reports · 2021Article
- 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of different metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms on Hounsfield unit (HU) and standardized uptake values (SUV) in a phantom setting and verify these results in patients with metallic implants undergoing oncological PET/CT examinations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this prospective study, PET-CT examinations of 28 oncological patients (14 female, 14 male, mean age 69.5 ± 15.2y) with 38 different metal implants were included. CT datasets were reconstructed using standard weighted filtered back projection (WFBP) without MAR, MAR in image space (MARIS) and iterative MAR (iMAR, hip algorithm). The three datasets were used for PET attenuation correction. SUV and HU measurements were performed at the site of the most prominent bright and dark band artifacts. Differences between HU and SUV values across the different reconstructions were compared using paired t-tests. Bonferroni correction was used to prevent alpha-error accumulation (
resultsFor bright band artifacts, MARIS led to a non-significant mean decrease of 12.0% (345 ± 315 HU) in comparison with WFBP (391 ± 293 HU), whereas iMAR led to a significant decrease of 68.3% (125 ± 185 HU,
conclusioniMAR significantly reduces artifacts caused by metal implants in CT and thus leads to a significant change of SUV measurements in bright and dark band artifacts compared with WFBP and MARIS, thus probably improving PET quantification. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The present work indicates that MAR algorithms such as iMAR algorithm in integrated PET/CT scanners are useful to improve CT image quality as well as PET quantification in the evaluation of tracer uptake adjacent to large metal implants. A detailed analysis of oncological patients with various large metal implants using different MAR algorithms in PET/CT has not been conducted yet.
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.