ArticleEJNMMI physics2022
Optimizing acquisition times for total-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography with half-dose
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the feasibility of a 40-minute uptake time for long axial field of view [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Deep learning-enhanced digital-BGO versus TOF PET/CT: comparative assessment of detection, quantitation, and overall image quality.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Low dose optimization for total-body 2-[European radiology · 2025Article
- Unveiling the biological side of PET-derived biomarkers: a simulation-based approach applied to PDAC assessment.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Expert consensus on workflow of PET/CT with long axial field-of-view.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Review
- Clinical Performance Comparison of a Long Versus a Short Axial Field-of-View PET/CT Using EARL-Compliant Reconstructions.Molecular imaging and biology · 2024Article
- The earliest optimal timing for total-bodyEuropean radiology · 2024Article
- Combined whole-body dynamic and static PET/CT with low-dose [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Image Quality and Quantitative PET Parameters of Low-Dose [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Long axial field of view (LAFOV) PET-CT: implementation in static and dynamic oncological studies.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Review
- Application of the long axial field-of-view PET/CT with low-dose [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Long axial field of view PET/CT in critically ill patients: lessons from a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe present study aimed to explore the boundary of acquisition time and propose an optimized acquisition time range for total-body positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) oncological imaging using half-dose (1.85 MBq/kg)
methodsIn this retrospective study based on a total-body PET system (uEXPLORER), an exploration cohort (October 2019-December 2019) of 46 oncology patients was first studied. The acquisition time for all patients was 15 min, and the acquired images were reconstructed and further split into 15-, 8-, 5-, 3-, 2-, and 1-min duration groups (abbreviated as G15, G8, G5, G3, G2, and G1). The image quality and lesion detectability of reconstructed PET images with different acquisition times were evaluated subjectively (5-point scale, lesion detection rate) and objectively (standardized uptake values, tumor-to-background ratio). In the same way, the initial optimized acquisition times were further validated in a cohort of 147 oncology patients (December 2019-June 2021) by using the Gs images (the images obtained using the 15- and 10-min acquisition times) as controls.
resultsIn the exploration cohort, the subjective scores for G1, G2, G3, G5, and G8 images were 2.0 ± 0.2, 2.9 ± 0.3, 3.0 ± 0.0, 3.9 ± 0.2, and 4.2 ± 0.4, respectively. Two cases in G1 were rated as 1 point. No significant difference in scores was observed between G5 and G8 (p > 0.99). In general, groups with a longer acquisition time showed lower background uptake and lesion conspicuity. Compared with G15, lesion detection rate significantly reduced to 85.3% in G1 (p < 0.05). In the validation cohort, the subjective score was 3.0 ± 0.2 for G2, 3.0 ± 0.1 for G3, 3.6 ± 0.5 for G5, 4.0 ± 0.3 for G8, and 4.4 ± 0.5 for Gs. Only the scores between G2 and G3 were not significantly different (p > 0.99). The detection rates (204 lesions) significantly reduced to 94.1-90.2% in G3 and G2 (all p < 0.05).
conclusionA 2-min acquisition time provided acceptable performance in certain groups and specific medical situations. And protocols with acquisition times ≥ 5 min could provide comparable lesion detectability as regular protocols, showing better compatibility and feasibility with clinical practice.
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.