ArticleEJNMMI research2025
Quantification in respiratory-gated PET acquisition: can data-driven methods replace device-based systems?-a comparative and retrospective study.
Article in EJNMMI research, 2025. 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.
- Motion mitigation in positron-emission tomography guided radiotherapy delivered on a magnetic resonance imaging-linear accelerator.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Effect of data-driven motion correction for respiratory movement on lesion detectability in PET-CT: a phantom study.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDevice-based respiratory gating improves diagnostic and quantification accuracy in positron emission tomography (PET), but requires additional time to setup the device and the failure rate can be significant. Our aim was to internally validate the quantification performance of data-driven respiratory-gated PET imaging against the gold standard, the device-based method, in clinical oncological practice. We retrospectively analysed [18F]FDG PET/CT scans of patients from our centre with at least one measurable [18F]FDG-avid malignant lesion. All PET/CT acquisitions were performed on a Siemens Biograph 64 Vision 600 system with respiratory gating by belt and also by adding the data-driven gating with OncoFreeze AI™. We recorded the SUVmax and SUVpeak for up to a maximum of 5 lesions per patient. We computed the mean absolute bias between the two gating methods and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) at the cohort level and in subgroups.
resultsOf the 692 consecutive patients screened for inclusion, 196 patients were analysed, from whom 536 lesions were measured. The mean absolute biases in the SUVmax and SUVpeak of lesions in the whole cohort were 3.8% (CI 3.4-4.2) and 2.1% (CI 1.9-2.4), respectively. At patient-level, 21% of them had at least one lesion with a SUVmax bias above 10%, while for SUVpeak this proportion was 5%. In the subgroup analysis by PERCIST criteria, only 2% of patients had significant bias in the SUVmax, and 0.5% in SUVpeak. There was no clinically significant effect of lesion size or anatomical site on SUV measurements between the two respiratory gating methods.
conclusionQuantitative comparison of data-driven and device-based respiratory-gated PET scans revealed negligible differences, proving that data-driven respiratory gating is a reliable and accurate alternative to the device-based gating method in routine [18F]FDG-PET/CT oncological 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.