ArticleMedical physics2023
Monte Carlo-derived
Article in Medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current and future perspectives of molecular breast imaging with [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Review
- Comparison Between Prone SPECT-Based Semi-Quantitative Parameters and MBI-Based Semi-Quantitative Parameters in Patients with Locally Advanced Breast Cancer.Molecular imaging and biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent molecular breast imaging (MBI) images are limited to qualitative evaluation, not absolute measurement, of PURPOSE: This work assesses the accuracy of previously-published and newly-proposed tumor and normal breast tissue
methodsQuantification techniques were tested in over 4000 simulated acquisitions of spherical and ellipsoid tumors with clinically relevant uptake conditions using a validated Monte Carlo application of the GE Discovery NM750b system. The evaluated techniques consisted of four tumor total activity methodologies (two single-detector-based and two geometric-mean-based), two tumor MBI volume methodologies (diameter-based and ROI-based), and two normal tissue activity concentration methodologies (single-detector-based and geometric-mean-based). The most accurate of these techniques were then used to estimate tumor activity concentrations and tumor to normal tissue relative activity concentrations (RC).
resultsSingle-detector techniques for tumor total activity quantification achieved mean (standard deviation) relative errors of 0.2% (4.3%) and 1.6% (4.4%) when using the near and far detector images, respectively and were more accurate and precise than the measured 8.1% (5.8%) errors of a previously published geometric-mean technique. Using these activity estimates and the true tumor volumes resulted in tumor activity concentration and RC errors within 10% of simulated values. The precision of tumor activity concentration and RC when using only MBI measurements were largely driven by the errors in estimating tumor MBI volume using planar images (± 30% inter-quartile range).
conclusionsPlanar MBI images were shown to accurately and reliably be used to estimate tumor total activities and normal tissue activity concentrations in this simulation study. However, volumetric tumor uptake measurements (i.e., absolute and relative concentrations) are limited by inaccuracies in MBI volume estimation using two-dimensional images, highlighting the need for either tomographic MBI acquisitions or anatomical volume estimates for accurate three-dimensional tumor uptake estimates.
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.