ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2024
Difference in arterial FDG accumulation in healthy study participants between digital PET/CT and standard PET/CT.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the differences in FDG accumulation in arteries throughout the body between digital and standard PET/CT.
methodsForty-six people who had FDG-PET examinations with a digital PET/CT scanner for health screening between April 2020 and March 2021 and had previous examinations with a standard PET/CT scanner were the study participants. FDG accumulation in arteries throughout the body was visually assessed in each segment. Scan was considered positive when arterial FDG accumulation was equal to or greater than that of the liver. The positivity rates for general arteries and each arterial segment were compared between the two kinds of scanners. If any one of the arterial segments was considered positive, the general arteries were classified as positive. Moreover, the rate of change in results from the standard PET/CT to the digital scanner in the same individual (negative to positive, positive to negative) was examined.
resultsIn the evaluation of general arteries, the positivity rates were 21.7% (10 cases) for the standard PET/CT, whereas positive rates were 97.8% (45 cases) for the digital PET/CT (p < 0.001). In all arterial segments, the positivity rate was significantly higher with the digital PET/CT compared to the standard PET/CT; those with the digital PET/CT were, respectively, 95.7%, 87.0%, 73.9%, 37.0%, 34.8%, and 21.7% in the femoral, brachial, aortic, subclavian, iliac, and carotid arteries. On the other hand, those with the standard PET/CT were 13.0%, 13.0%, 19.6%, 2.2%, 0%, and 4.4% in segments in the above order. Changes from negative to positive were shown in many cases; 35 cases (76.0%) of general arteries, 38 cases (82.6%) for the femoral artery, and 34 cases (73.9%) for the brachial artery. The exception was one case in which a change from positive to negative was confirmed in the carotid artery. In all arteries considered to be positive, FDG accumulation was not greater than but was equal to that in the liver with both scanners.
conclusionsArterial FDG accumulation was significantly higher with digital PET/CT compared to conventional PET/CT. With digital PET/CT, an arterial FDG accumulation equal to the liver may not to be considered as abnormal accumulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.