Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40399723›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI reports2025

Managing incidental findings in total body PET/CT studies: balancing ethical considerations and resource constraints.

Georgios I Angelis, Katie Ockenden, Steven R Meikle, Fernando Calamante

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Georgios I AngelisSydney Imaging Core Research Facility, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. georgios.angelis@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0469-1972
Katie OckendenSydney Imaging Core Research Facility, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Steven R Meikle *Sydney Imaging Core Research Facility, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Fernando Calamante *Sydney Imaging Core Research Facility, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Total body positron emission tomography (TB-PET) represents a major advancement in molecular imaging. While this technology expands the capabilities of PET imaging for both research and clinical applications, it also introduces significant ethical and operational challenges, particularly in the management of incidental findings. Current ethical and regulatory guidance acknowledge the need to address incidental findings that arise during research studies, but often provides ambiguous or insufficient direction. This leaves institutions to independently balance participant safety, ethical responsibilities, and resource constraints. Using the Australian National Total Body PET Facility as a case study, this article explores strategies for managing incidental findings in PET/CT research. By comparing research workflows with clinical practices, we highlight critical differences and propose a practical framework to help institutions establish ethically sound and feasible protocols. This framework aims to balance the duty of care to the participant with the logistical demands of PET research, contributing to the ongoing discourse on ethical imaging practices and offering guidance for managers of TB-PET research facilities.

Indexed as

Incidental findingsNuclear medicineRisk-cost analysisTotal body PET

Identifiers

PMID40399723
PMCPMC12095698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.