ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2021
Intrapatient repeatability of background
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- One-tenth-activity total-body positron emission tomography versus full-activity imaging in patients with a complex of hepatic malignant tumors: a retrospective study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- The application ofQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Review
- Impact of Reduced Image Noise on Deauville Scores in Patients with Lymphoma Scanned on a Long-Axial Field-of-View PET/CT-Scanner.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Reproducibility of [18F]FDG PET/CT liver SUV as reference or normalisation factor.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBackground activity is often used as a reference to assess tumor treatment response on positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy-2-[fluorine-18] fluoro-D-glucose integrated with computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT). Our objective was to find the preferred background by assessing the repeatability of its activity. The activity was expressed by a standardized uptake value normalized to lean body mass (SUL).
methodsPatients who received repeat
resultsThirty patients were included. The SUL ICCs for the ABP, liver, and muscle were 0.65 (95% CI, 0.38-0.81), 0.47 (95% CI, 0.15-0.70), and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.65-0.91), respectively. The SUL coefficients of variation (CVs) were 9% for the ABP, 12% for the liver, and 10% for muscle. Similar results were obtained from the Bland-Altman plots. There was a positive correlation between the variations in the liver SUL and the BGL (b=0.60, P<0.01). A similar result was found between the variations in muscle SUL and the BGL (b=0.45, P<0.01). The variation in muscle SUL showed a positive correlation with the variation in the tracer uptake period (b=0.58, P<0.01).
conclusionsThe SUL of the liver is more sensitive to BGLs and, therefore, may not be suitable as a referential background. Activities within the ABP and muscle are more stable than those of the liver and should be used as the preferred background for sequential patient evaluation.
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.