Trial reportEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
A prospective head-to-head comparison of
Trial report 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. It is linked to trial NCT06916624 (Multicenter Study of 18F-Labeled NY104 for PET/CT Imaging in Renal Cell Carcinoma), which is not on this 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.
Multicenter Study of 18F-Labeled NY104 for PET/CT Imaging in Renal Cell Carcinoma
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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of 18F-NYM005 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
methodsPatients with renal tumors were prospectively enrolled in the study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06916624). They were divided into three groups: Group I, patients with a primary renal tumor who were scheduled for surgery; Group II, patients with CAIX expression proven by histopathology after surgery who were suspicious of metastatic RCC; and Group Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKI), RCC patients who received TKI treatment. Paired 18F-NYM005 and 18F-FDG PET/CT scans were performed. Per-lesion diagnostic efficacy and uptake activity of the two tracers in primary tumors, lymph nodes, and distant metastases were compared.
resultsThirty-eight patients (median age, 61.5 y; 32 males) were enrolled, including 12 patients in Group I, 19 patients in Group II, and 7 patients in Group TKI. For detecting primary and metastatic lesions in Group I and Group II, 18F-NYM005 PET/CT demonstrated a higher accuracy (93.86% vs.70.50%, P < 0.001) and a higher specificity (96.95% vs.61.58%, P < 0.001) than 18F-FDG PET/CT, and no significant difference in sensitivity was observed between the two scans (88.80% vs. 85.06%, P = 0.306). In quantitative analysis, no significant difference in SUVmax was found between the18F-NYM005 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for primary tumors (14.56 ± 10.31 vs. 9.96 ± 5.56, P = 0.233) and metastatic lymph nodes (5.99 [4.12, 31.71] vs. 4.06 [3.18, 13.01], P = 0.754), and the SUVmax of the distant metastases was higher (7.92 [2.92, 13.40] vs. 2.49 [1.12, 5.37], P < 0.001) in 18F-NYM005 PET/CT than that in 18F-FDG PET/CT. In Group TKI, the SUVmax of the primary and metastatic lesions was lower (1.59 [1.16, 3.25] vs. 6.76 [5.11, 13.01], P < 0.001) in 18F-NYM005 PET/CT than that in 18F-FDG PET/CT.
conclusion18F-NYM005 PET/CT offers a high diagnostic efficacy for detecting primary tumors and distant metastases in patients with RCC, while it might be of limited value in identifying metastatic lymph nodes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41857358What 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.