Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38711135›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2024

Comparison of quantitative whole body PET parameters on [

Narjess Ayati, Lachlan McIntosh, James Buteau, Ramin Alipour, Michal Pudis, Nicholas Daw, Price Jackson, Michael S Hofman

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Reducing acquisition time in O-(2-Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Narjess AyatiProstate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Lachlan McIntoshDepartment of Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
James ButeauProstate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ramin AlipourProstate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Michal PudisDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Bellvitge University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
Nicholas DawProstate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Price JacksonProstate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Michael S HofmanProstate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence, Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Michael.hofman@petermac.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8622-159X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPSMA PET/CT is a predictive and prognostic biomarker for determining response to [

methodsFifty consecutive patients with mCRPC who underwent [

resultsThe SUVmax and SUVmean were higher, and MTV-PSMA was lower in the BPL reconstructed images compared to the OSEM group, with a mean difference of 8.4 (17.5%), 0.7 (8.2%) and - 21.5 mL (-3.4%), respectively. There was a strong correlation between the calculated SUVmax, SUVmean, and MTV-PSMA values in the OSEM and BPL reconstructed images (Pearson r values of 0.98, 0.99, and 1.0, respectively). No patients were reclassified from low to high volume disease or vice versa when switching from OSEM to BPL reconstruction.

conclusions[

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantAgedAged, 80 and overBayes TheoremDipeptidesEdetic AcidGallium IsotopesGallium RadioisotopesHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisOligopeptidesDipeptidesEdetic Acidgallium 68 PSMA-11Gallium IsotopesGallium RadioisotopesOligopeptidesPSMA-11RadiopharmaceuticalsBayesian penalized likelihood (BPL)Image reconstructionMetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)Ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM)PSMA PET/CT

Identifiers

PMID38711135
PMCPMC11075202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.