ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2026
Clinical significance of suspicious incidental FDG uptake: a comparison between digital PET/CT and conventional PET/CT.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical significance of incidental
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included patients who underwent cPET from April 2019 to March 2020 and dPET from June 2020 to May 2021. Epilepsy PET and cardiac PET examinations requiring prolonged fasting protocols were excluded. Suspicious incidental FDG uptake was defined as a lesion unrelated to the primary indication or previously known disease, showing visually increased uptake and explicitly recommended for further evaluation in the original radiology report because malignancy was considered a concern. Lesions for which only follow-up was advised were excluded. Organ-specific analyses were performed exploratorily. Detection rates, organ distribution, malignant outcomes, and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) were compared between groups.
resultsA total of 1,815 cPET examinations and 1,769 dPET examinations were analyzed. Suspicious incidental FDG uptake was identified more often with dPET than with cPET (149/1,769 [8.4%] vs 97/1,815 [5.3%], p < 0.01). Further diagnostic evaluation was performed in 73 cPET lesions and 111 dPET lesions, and confirmed incidental malignancy was identified in 15 and 29 lesions, respectively, corresponding to 0.83% (95% CI: 0.50-1.36%) and 1.64% (95% CI: 1.15-2.35%) of all examinations (p < 0.05). Colorectal cancer was the most common incidental malignancy in both groups. Prostate cancer was the second most frequent incidental malignancy in the dPET/CT group but was not confirmed in the cPET/CT group. Median SUVmax of incidental lesions was higher with dPET than with cPET (6.8 [4.8-9.7] vs 5.5 [4.2-9.0], p < 0.05). However, SUVmax did not significantly distinguish malignant from non-malignant lesions in either group.
conclusionsIn routine clinical practice, implementation of dPET was associated with increased detection of suspicious incidental FDG uptake and confirmed incidental malignancy compared with cPET. This difference was most apparent for colorectal and prostatic lesions. However, SUVmax alone had limited value for distinguishing malignant from non-malignant incidental lesions, indicating that organ-specific clinical interpretation remains essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42496849What 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.