ArticleRadiation protection dosimetry2026
Impact of local tumor-to-background uptake ratio on PET metabolic response assessment.
Article in Radiation protection dosimetry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) quantifies changes in radiotracer uptake to assess therapeutic response in cancer. However, the accuracy of these quantifications depends on imaging parameters, tumor size, and the local tumor-to-background uptake ratio (local-TBR). In this study, 'background' refers to the surroundings of the lesion rather than a standardized reference tissue. A NEMA Image Quality phantom was filled with 18F-FDG at varying sphere-to-background ratios to simulate clinical scenarios corresponding to PERCIST-defined thresholds for partial metabolic response (-30%) and progressive metabolic disease (+30%). Positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography imaging revealed that measured uptake changes systematically underestimated the true ±30% differences, particularly in smaller spheres. These findings indicate a potential source of systematic error in PET-based tumor response assessment, which may influence clinical interpretation. Further studies are recommended to investigate the effects of varying imaging parameters, tumor types, and clinical settings to improve the robustness of PERCIST-based evaluations.
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.