ArticleEJNMMI physics2020
Phantom-based image quality assessment of clinical
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 87 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reference tissue uptake of [18F]PSMA-1007 in positron emission tomography of recurrent prostate cancer.European radiology · 2026Article
- Total-body [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Whole-Body [Scientific data · 2025Article
- Lung lesion detectability on images obtained from decimated and CNN-based denoised [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry ofEJNMMI research · 2025Article
- Recent advances in radionuclide medical imaging techniques.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Improvement of image quality for small lesion sizes inAsia Oceania journal of nuclear medicine & biology · 2025Article
- Simultaneous evaluation of brain metastasis and thoracic cancer using semiconductorAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2024Article
- Insertion of synthetic lesions on patient data: a method for evaluating clinical performance differences between PET systems.EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Variability in PET image quality and quantification measured with a permanently filledEJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Optimal clinical protocols for total-body 18F-FDG PET/CT examination under different activity administration plans.EJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Impact of γ factor in the penalty function of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction (Q.Clear) to achieve high-resolution PET images.EJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- A personal acquisition time regimen ofCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022Article
- Phantom-based acquisition time and image reconstruction parameter optimisation for oncologic FDG PET/CT examinations using a digital system.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- BSREM for Brain Metastasis Detection with 18F-FDG-PET/CT in Lung Cancer Patients.Journal of digital imaging · 2022Article
- A cross-scanner and cross-tracer deep learning method for the recovery of standard-dose imaging quality from low-dose PET.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- EARL compliance measurements on the biograph vision Quadra PET/CT system with a long axial field of view.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Shining Damaged Hearts: Immunotherapy-Related Cardiotoxicity in the Spotlight of Nuclear Cardiology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- What validation tests can be done by the clinical medical physicist while waiting for the standardization of quantitative SPECT/CT imaging?EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe assessed and compared image quality obtained with clinical
methodsWe performed list-mode (LM) PET acquisitions using a NEMA/IEC NU2 phantom, with activity concentrations of 5 kBq/mL and 25 kBq/mL for the background (9.5 L) and sphere inserts, respectively. For each device, reconstructions were obtained varying the image statistics (10, 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 300 s from LM data) and the number of iterations (range 1 to 10) in addition to the employed local clinical protocol setup. We measured for each reconstructed dataset: the quantitative cross-calibration, the image noise on the uniform background assessed by the coefficient of variation (COV), and the recovery coefficients (RCs) evaluated in the hot spheres. Additionally, we compared the characteristic time-activity-product (TAP) that is the product of scan time per bed position × mass-activity administered (in min·MBq/kg) across datasets.
resultsGood system cross-calibration was obtained for all tested datasets with < 6% deviation from the expected value was observed. For all clinical protocol settings, image noise was compatible with clinical interpretation (COV < 15%). Digital PET showed an improved background signal-to-noise ratio as compared to conventional PMT-based PET. RCs were comparable between digital and PMT-based PET datasets. Compared to PMT-based PET, digital systems provided comparable image quality with lower TAP (from ~ 40% less and up to 70% less).
conclusionsThis study compared the achievable clinical image quality in three state-of-the-art digital PET/CT devices (from different vendors) as well as in two conventional PMT-based PET. Reported results show that a comparable image quality is achievable with a TAP reduction of ~ 40% in digital PET. This could lead to a significant reduction of the administered mass-activity and/or scan time with direct benefits in terms of dose exposure and patient comfort.
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.