ReviewEuropean journal of hybrid imaging2019
Non-FDG PET/CT in Diagnostic Oncology: a pictorial review.
Review in European journal of hybrid imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The implication of aberrant NRF2 activation in management of female cancers.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- The Role of 11C-Methionine PET Imaging for the Evaluation of Lymphomas: A Systematic Review.Hematology reports · 2024Review
- The trends and significance of SSTR PET/CT added to MRI in follow-up imaging of low-grade meningioma treated with fractionated proton therapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023Article
- Preliminary Evaluation of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Radiolabeled withNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- PET Use in Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Current State of Breast Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Theranostics.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Positron Emission Tomography in Merkel Cell Carcinoma.Cancers · 2020Review
- 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
10 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is currently one of the main imaging modalities for cancer patients worldwide. Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT has earned its global recognition in the modern management of cancer patients and is rapidly becoming an important imaging modality for patients with cardiac, neurological, and infectious/inflammatory conditions.Despite its proven benefits, FDG has limitations in the assessment of several relevant tumours such as prostate cancer. Therefore, there has been a pressing need for the development and clinical application of different PET radiopharmaceuticals that could image these tumours more precisely. Accordingly, several non-FDG PET radiopharmaceuticals have been introduced into the clinical arena for management of cancer. This trend will undoubtedly continue to spread internationally. The use of PET/CT with different PET radiopharmaceuticals specific to tumour type and biological process being assessed is part of the personalised precision medicine approach.The objective of this publication is to provide a case-based method of understanding normal biodistribution, variants, and pitfalls, including several examples of different imaging appearances for the main oncological indications for each of the new non-FDG PET radiopharmaceuticals. This should facilitate the interpretation and recognition of common variants and pitfalls to ensure that, in clinical practice, the official report is accurate and helpful.Some of these radiopharmaceuticals are already commercially available in many countries (e.g.
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.