ArticleEJNMMI research2025
Can non-tumorous liver tissue serve as a reliable reference measure for [
Article in EJNMMI research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffect of radiation on [18F]FDG-uptake in non-tumorous liver tissue after radioembolization is sparsely investigated, despite the liver being the most common reference for assessment of metabolic response (e.g., PET Response Criteria In Solid Tumors). The study aims to evaluate changes in mean standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass in treated and untreated non-tumorous liver after unilobar radioembolization with 90Y-glass microspheres in patients with colorectal liver metastases.
resultsEighteen patients were included. Median mean standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass in the treated lobe increased from baseline 2.88 (range 2.24–3.81) to posttreatment 2.98 (range 2.53–3.53). In the untreated lobe, the median mean standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass changed from 2.95 (range 2.23–4.02) to 2.88 (range 2.39–3.71), respectively. The median mean standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass of the ratio treated/untreated liver changed from 0.96 (range .77–1.23) to 1.00 (range .88–1.26) after treatment (p = 0.147)). The correlation for the ratio (mean standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass in treated liver divided by mean standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass in untreated liver) before and after radioembolization was nonsignificant. No trend was seen between [18F]FDG-uptake and treated or untreated non-tumorous liver absorbed dose.
conclusionsThis study shows no significant increase in [18F]FDG-uptake in both treated and untreated non-tumorous liver in patients with liver metastases of colorectal carcinoma, three months after lobar 90Y-glass microsphere radioembolization. This non-significant increase suggests that using background SUL in the non-tumorous liver (treated and untreated) is reliable and appropriate as a reference to assess metabolic response three months after unilobar radioembolization.
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.