ArticleEJNMMI physics2019
Quantitative implications of the updated EARL 2019 PET-CT performance standards.
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 43 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- PSMA PET/CT: joint EANM procedure guideline/SNMMI procedure standard for prostate cancer imaging 2.0.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Guideline
- [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Trial
- Whole-body CD8Nature communications · 2025Trial
- Outcome prediction based on [18F]FDG PET/CT in patients with pleural mesothelioma treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab +/- UV1 telomerase vaccine.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Trial
- Differential performance of statistical versus machine learning methods in partial volume correction in oncologic F18-FDG PET/CT scanning.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Dual-time-point [EJNMMI research · 2026Article
- Article
- SUV normalisation and reference tissue selection for [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Observational
- Synergizing Liquid Biopsy and Hybrid PET Imaging for Prognostic Assessment in Prostate Cancer: A Focus Review.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Robustness of textural analysis features in quantitativeEJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- External phantom-based validation of a deep-learning network trained for upscaling of digital low count PET data.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- EARL compliance on the Biograph Vision Quadra PET-CT: phantom study for static and continuous bed motion acquisitions.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2025Article
- FRID-PI: a machine learning model for diagnosing fracture-related infections based onFrontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Performance Characteristics of a New Generation 148-cm Axial Field-of-View uMI Panorama GS PET/CT System with Extended NEMA NU 2-2018 and EARL Standards.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2024Article
- Quantitative PSMA-PET parameters in localized prostate cancer: prognostic and potential predictive value.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Mitigating SUV uncertainties using total body PET imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Insertion of synthetic lesions on patient data: a method for evaluating clinical performance differences between PET systems.EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence research in radiation oncology: a practical guide for the clinician on concepts and methods.BJR open · 2024Review
- Quantitative and clinical implications of the EARL2 versus EARL1 [EJNMMI research · 2023Article
- Sensitivity of an AI method for [EJNMMI research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRecently, updated EARL specifications (EARL2) have been developed and announced. This study aims at investigating the impact of the EARL2 specifications on the quantitative reads of clinical PET-CT studies and testing a method to enable the use of the EARL2 standards whilst still generating quantitative reads compliant with current EARL standards (EARL1).
methodsThirteen non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and seventeen lymphoma PET-CT studies were used to derive four image datasets-the first dataset complying with EARL1 specifications and the second reconstructed using parameters as described in EARL2. For the third (EARL2F6) and fourth (EARL2F7) dataset in EARL2, respectively, 6 mm and 7 mm Gaussian post-filtering was applied. We compared the results of quantitative metrics (MATV, SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVmean, TLG, and tumor-to-liver and tumor-to-blood pool ratios) obtained with these 4 datasets in 55 suspected malignant lesions using three commonly used segmentation/volume of interest (VOI) methods (MAX41, A50P, SUV4).
resultsWe found that with EARL2 MAX41 VOI method, MATV decreases by 22%, TLG remains unchanged and SUV values increase by 23-30% depending on the specific metric used. The EARL2F7 dataset produced quantitative metrics best aligning with EARL1, with no significant differences between most of the datasets (p>0.05). Different VOI methods performed similarly with regard to SUV metrics but differences in MATV as well as TLG were observed. No significant difference between NSCLC and lymphoma cancer types was observed.
conclusionsApplication of EARL2 standards can result in higher SUVs, reduced MATV and slightly changed TLG values relative to EARL1. Applying a Gaussian filter to PET images reconstructed using EARL2 parameters successfully yielded EARL1 compliant data.
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.