ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2022
Diagnostic performance of total-body
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2022. 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- EnhancingCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- Article
- KineticEJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Review
- Different hydration protocols for the quantification of healthy tissue uptake of half-doseQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Marriage of radiotracers and total-body PET/CT rapid imaging system: current status and clinical advances.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Review
- Extending the clinical capabilities of short- and long-lived positron-emitting radionuclides through high sensitivity PET/CT.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byTotal-body [2022
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo comparatively evaluate the diagnostic performances of total-body
methodsThis study included 156 patients with liver tumours. Seventy-eight patients underwent total-body PET/CT. PET raw data were reconstructed using acquisition durations of 2 min (G2) and 15 min (G15). Another 78 patients with liver lesions (control patients) underwent conventional uMI780 PET/CT (G780). All patients were evaluated based on TNM staging. The maximum tumour standardized uptake value (tumour SUVmax), mean normal liver SUV (SUVmean), and tumour SUVmax-to-liver SUVmean ratio (TLR) were determined for all patients. G15 data were used as the reference in the lesion detectability analysis. The diagnostic performances of PET/CT in terms of visual parameters and of PET in terms of semi-quantitative parameters such as SUVmax and TLR were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis of SUVmax and TLR at G2 was performed. Pathologic findings of surgical specimens served as the gold standard for all patients.
resultsThe lesions found in G15 were also noted in G2; three lymph nodes were missed in G2. However, no significant difference was found in the TNM stage among G2, G15, and G780. For benign and malignant lesions, the liver SUVmean in G2 and G15 was higher than that in G780 (all P < 0.05). The tumour SUVmax and TLR in G2 were equivalent to those in G15 and G780 regardless of whether the lesions were benign or malignant. ROC curve analysis (SUVmax cutoff: 4.34, TLR cutoff: 1.34) demonstrated that G2 also had good sensitivity in detecting liver cancer.
conclusionThe diagnostic performance of total-body PET/CT in G2 was comparable to that in G15 among liver cancer patients. Further, the diagnostic efficiency of total-body PET/CT imaging with fast 2-min acquisition and conventional PET/CT was similar.
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.