ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
A Lesion-adaptive Segmentation Approach for Tumor Delineation on FDG PET/CT in Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma Patients.
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. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSUV4.0-based thresholding is widely used for baseline [¹⁸F]FDG PET-based metabolic tumor volume (MTV) assessment in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but its suitability at interim and end-of-treatment (EoT) PET, when residual uptake is heterogeneous and tumor-to-background contrast is lower, is uncertain. We aimed to define a lesion-adaptive decision rule approach for selecting the optimal segmentation method based on lesion-level features and treatment phase and, exploratorily, to compare its performance with ML-based selection models.
methodsA total of 598 lesions from 33 DLBCL patients (HOVON-84 trial) were segmented at baseline, interim, and EoT [¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT using six semi-automated methods: SUV2.5, SUV4.0, 41%max, A50peak, MV2, and MV3. Segmentation quality was independently rated for each lesion by two observers (scale 1-5; 3 = preferred), with adjudication by a third reviewer. The influence of lesional SUVpeak, tumor-to-background ratio (TBRpeak), background uptake (SUVbg), treatment phase, and location on segmentation quality was assessed. Over six million rule-based combinations of key features were evaluated to derive a lesion-adaptive decision rule for preferred method selection. Exploratorily, ML classifiers were trained and compared with the decision-rule strategy.
resultsSegmentation quality varied across lesions and methods. SUVpeak, TBRpeak, and SUVbg were key predictors of method performance. The final lesion-adaptive rule, applying SUV4.0 if SUVpeak > 8, MV3 if SUVbg > 0.8, and otherwise MV2, achieved a lesion-wise accuracy of 0.82 for preferred method selection, matching the best-performing ML models. Versus SUV4.0 alone (benchmark), the Decision Rule improved lesion-level MTV agreement with the reference (ρ = 0.85 vs. 0.82 vs. best ML ρ = 0.81) and reduced the proportion of lesions with > 10% MTV deviation (46.2% vs. 63.5%; best ML 50.2%). Total-MTV agreements with the reference were uniformly high across all strategies (all ρ ≥ 0.94), with modest gains for the decision rule at interim and EoT PET.
conclusionA straightforward decision-rule approach using SUVpeak and SUVbg successfully selects the preferred method for individual DLBCL lesions across treatment phases and matches ML performance with greater simplicity and clinical applicability. Although supervision remains necessary, this approach helps address the current gap in segmentation methodology for interim and EoT PET, where SUV4.0 may not always be appropriate.
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.