ArticleEJNMMI physics2026
It's PET but not as we know it: radiation protection considerations when using a novel specimen PET-CT scanner during tumour resections for urology and head & neck patients.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06676943 (A Single Centre Pilot Study Investigating the Diagnostic Performance of High-resolution Specimen PET-CT in Determining Margin Status in Cancer Resection), 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.
A Single Centre Pilot Study Investigating the Diagnostic Performance of High-resolution Specimen PET-CT in Determining Margin Status in Cancer Resection
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the radiation protection requirements for a UK first specimen PET-CT scanner, the AURA10 (Xeos, Ghent), as assessed through a clinical trial investigating its use for intra-operative surgical margin assessment in urology and head and neck (H&N) tumour removal.
methodsA radiation risk assessment was performed to inform radiation protection requirements and training. 0.8 MBq/kg of
resultsTraining sessions and dry runs with surgical staff helped identify radiation risks and optimise workflow. Occupational doses from surgeons and scrub nurses were the highest for both modalities. Doses to other theatre staff were below dose limits for members of the public in the UK. Doses to staff outside theatres, including recovery and histopathology, were found to be below threshold values. Low level contamination was present in swabs (< 6 kBq and < 250 kBq for H&N and urology cases respectively).
conclusionThorough staff training, systems of work and shielding are required to ensure radiation doses to staff are minimised and contamination and radioactive waste are contained. There were difficult occasions during shift changes and untrained staff rota-ed in, but nuclear medicine supervision and then the introduction of theatre-based cascade trainers helped solidify learning and provide assurance to theatre staff and staff showed good compliance with the systems of work in place. Annual doses to theatre staff are heavily dependent on workload, with surgeons and scrub nurses closest to the patient receiving whole body doses of 39 µSv and 12 µSv, and finger doses of 88 µSv and 48 µSv respectively per case for H&N. Corresponding urology doses per case were measured as 7.2 µSv and 2.5 µSv for whole body and 16 µSv and below threshold values for the assisting surgeon and scrub nurse respectively. TRIAL REGISTRY: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov . URL trail registry record: Study Details | NCT06676943 | Investigating the Diagnostic Performance of High-resolution Specimen PET-CT in Determining Margin Status in Cancer Resection | ClinicalTrials.gov.
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.