ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
Head-to-head comparison of
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Spatiotemporal voxel-wise concordance betweenEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
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
Abstract
purposeThis research was designed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy, lesion detection, and clinical management impact of 18F-FAP-2286 PET/CT versus 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).
methodsParticipants with confirmed or suspected ccRCC diagnoses were prospectively included in our study. All patients underwent 18F-FAP-2286 and 18F-FDG PET/CT. The evaluation of diagnostic performance was conducted utilizing pathology and clinical follow-up as the reference standards. The quantitative analysis included the SUVmax, TBR, FTV/MTV, and TLF/TLG.
resultsTwenty-two patients with initial stage (n = 20)/recurrent (n = 2) ccRCC underwent 18F-FAP-2286 and 18F-FDG PET/CT. Compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT, 18F-FAP-2286 PET/CT had a greater TBR for primary ccRCC lesions [2.8 (1.9–5.4) vs.1.6 (1.1–3.8); P = 0.019], whereas the SUVmax did not significantly differ [8.4 (4.7–17.2) vs.6.6 (4.9–19.4); P = 0.965]. With respect to metastatic lymph nodes, 18F-FAP-2286 PET/CT had a higher SUVmax [13.7 (10.8–18.3) vs. 11.0 (7.3–16.4); P = 0.043] and TBR [10.4 (8.0-13.3) vs. 5.7 (3.4–8.7); P<0.001]. For distant metastases, the detection rates of 18F-FAP-2286 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for lung metastases, liver metastases, and bone metastases were 96.9% (94/97) and 83.5% (81/97) (P = 0.002), 100% (5/5) and 80% (4/5), and 97.2% (35/36) and 80.6% (29/36) (P = 0.042), respectively. 18F-FAP-2286 PET/CT revealed additional lesions, led to upstaging of T or M stage in 18.18% (4/22) of patients, resulting in treatment escalation in 4/22 patients.
conclusionIn this head-to-head comparison, 18F-FAP-2286 PET/CT demonstrated superior performance for detecting primary and metastatic ccRCC lesions and provided more accurate TNM staging, significantly impacting clinical management. Interpretation should consider limitations, notably its exploratory sample size and reliance on imaging follow-up for confirming metastases.
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.