ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2026
Comparison of image quality of breast-specific positron emission tomography between opposite-type and ring-shaped systems: insights from Phantom and clinical studies in a Japanese multicenter trial.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to directly compare the imaging performance of the opposite-type positron emission mammography (PEM), first-generation photomultiplier tube (PMT)-based ring-shaped dedicated breast PET (dbPET1), and second-generation silicon photomultiplier (SiPM)-based dbPET (dbPET2) using clinical imaging protocols, and determine the requisite acquisition conditions for achieving comparable depiction of breast lesions across systems.
methodsA cylindrical phantom with four spheres (diameter: 3–10 mm) was prepared with sphere-to-background ratios (SBRs) of 2:1, 4:1, and 8:1, based on clinical images. The phantom was scanned for 10 min in list mode with the spheres at the center and periphery of each detector and reconstructed at 1–10 min. Visual and quantitative evaluations were performed using the coefficient of variation of the background (CVBG), detection index (DI), and contrast recovery coefficient (CRC). Representative clinical images of three lesion types, namely, mass uptake near the nipple, mass uptake close to the chest wall, and non-mass uptake, were also assessed using visual evaluation and the tumor-to-background ratio (TBR).
resultsPhantom images with SBRs of 2:1 and 4:1 did not sufficiently visualize the small spheres; therefore, an 8:1 ratio was chosen for the analysis. dbPET was capable of visualizing smaller spheres compared with PEM. At the periphery, image quality was reduced for all systems, while all systems were able to identify spheres ≥ 7.5 mm in diameter at a contrast ratio of 1:8 under clinical imaging protocols. The DI decreased with shorter acquisition time, while the CRC remained relatively stable. The CVBG increased, especially in dbPET2. Clinical evaluation confirmed the acquisition-time dependence of image quality in both PEM and dbPET systems, providing practical insight into their appropriate use under routine clinical conditions. TBR analysis supported the consistency between the phantom study results and the clinical evaluations.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that all breast-specific PET systems can achieve image quality capable of identifying sub-centimeter lesions within clinically feasible scan times. These findings provide the foundation for harmonizing protocols across systems and optimizing their clinical application in breast cancer diagnosis.
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.