ReviewEJNMMI research2026
Beyond discovery: are we understanding PET tracers as fast as we invent them? a critical review.
Review in EJNMMI research, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe field of nuclear medicine is experiencing an unprecedented proliferation of novel positron emission tomography (PET) tracers, with FDA-approved PET tracers increasing by 75% between 2020 and 2023 (from 12 to 21 agents). While this innovation promises to advance molecular imaging and personalized medicine, it raises critical questions about whether our biological understanding, validated clinical interpretation frameworks, and educational systems are keeping pace with technological advancement. MAIN BODY: This critical review examines the rapid emergence of new PET radiopharmaceuticals between 2019 and 2025, analyzing the tension between discovery velocity and the slower process of deep biological validation. We evaluate this phenomenon through four dimensions: (1) biological rationale and mechanistic understanding, (2) clinical validation and comparative effectiveness, (3) standardization of acquisition and interpretation protocols, and (4) integration into clinical practice and education. We explore the limitations of established tracers like [1⁸F]FDG and early-generation prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligands that catalyzed innovation, then critically assess the new generation of tracers targeting fibroblast activation protein (FAP), novel PSMA variants, and neurodegeneration biomarkers. A central critique addresses the growing evidence gap: while multiple PSMA tracers have been approved, head-to-head comparative studies remain scarce, and standardization efforts lag behind regulatory approvals. We examine systemic biases favoring novelty over reproducibility in academic incentive structures and discuss the ethical implications of premature clinical adoption. From the perspective of a physician in training, we highlight the practical challenges of navigating a landscape where conference presentations often precede robust clinical evidence.
conclusionThe rapid expansion of our PET tracer portfolio reflects remarkable radiopharmaceutical ingenuity. However, translating innovation into meaningful clinical benefit requires a culture of "responsible innovation" that prioritizes fundamental biological understanding, rigorous head-to-head validation studies, harmonized acquisition and interpretation standards, and systematic educational initiatives. Professional societies must strike a balance between encouraging innovation and demanding comparative effectiveness data. Ultimately, the goal is not simply to invent more tracers, but to understand them deeply enough to select the right tracer for the right patient, at the right time, guided by evidence rather than availability.
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.