ArticleEJNMMI physics2026
Continuous bed motion versus step-and-shoot acquisition in LAFOV PET/CT: insights from multi-phantom and patient studies.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContinuous bed motion (CBM) allows flexible extension of the scan range compared to conventional step‑and‑shoot (S&S) acquisition but has not yet been evaluated in long axial field‑of‑view (LAFOV) PET/CT. This study systematically assessed the impact of CBM on image quality, noise, and quantitative performance in the Biograph Vision Quadra LAFOV PET/CT using multi‑phantom and patient scans compared to S&S.
methodsA uniform tube phantom and a NEMA IEC phantom, positioned centrally and off-centre, were scanned across bed speeds (2.8-50 mm/s), sensitivity modes and scan ranges (106 and 150 cm) to evaluate image uniformity, axial count profiles, noise and contrast recovery coefficients (CRC). Ten oncological patients receiving [
resultsFor comparable count statistics and image noise, CBM required a prolonged acquisition (378 s) to match the S&S (300 s) protocol, resulting in comparable image quality for phantoms and patients. CRC and image uniformity were preserved across all evaluated conditions, even at the FOV's axial edge (50.5 cm) for 8.4 mm/s (22 mm sphere: CRC 76% S&S vs. 71% CBM). In patient scans, minor differences in axial count profiles, net true counts, and SUV values (SUV
conclusionsThe prolonged CBM protocol provides image quality and quantitative performance comparable to S&S in LAFOV PET/CT. While the reconstructed image range remains constrained by CT coverage, the patient scan comparison with 106 cm scan range, together with extended range phantom measurements, indicate that CBM can support scan range extension beyond 106 cm without compromising diagnostic accuracy.
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.