Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39093483›Full record

ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2024

Clinical Performance Comparison of a Long Versus a Short Axial Field-of-View PET/CT Using EARL-Compliant Reconstructions.

Mostafa Roya, Johannes H van Snick, Riemer H J A Slart, Walter Noordzij, Gilles N Stormezand, Antoon T M Willemsen, Ronald Boellaard, Andor W J M Glaudemans, Charalampos Tsoumpas, Joyce van Sluis

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Exploring the feasibility of a 40-minute uptake time for long axial field of view [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  3. Total Body PET.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Mostafa RoyaDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands. m.roya@umcg.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-2979-3991
Johannes H van SnickDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Riemer H J A SlartDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Walter NoordzijDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Gilles N StormezandDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Antoon T M WillemsenDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ronald BoellaardDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Andor W J M GlaudemansDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Charalampos TsoumpasDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Joyce van SluisDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo ensure comparable PET/CT image quality between or within centres, clinical inter-system performance comparisons following European Association of Nuclear Medicine Research Ltd. (EARL) guidelines is required. In this work the performance of the long axial field-of-view Biograph Vision Quadra is compared to its predecessor, the short axial field-of-view Biograph Vision. PROCEDURES: To this aim, patients with suspected tumour lesions received a single weight-based (3 MBq/kg) 2-deoxy-2-[

resultsTwenty patients (mean age, 60 years ± 8.8 [standard deviation], 16 male) were enrolled. Inter-reader agreement ranged from good to very good for IQ and IN (0.62 ≤ W ≤ 0.81), and fair for TD (0.29 ≤ W ≤ 0.39). Furthermore, a significant difference was found for TD (p = 0.015) between the systems, showing improved TD for the Quadra.

conclusionThis study demonstrates that the Quadra can be used in routine clinical practice with multiple PET/CT systems or in multicentre studies. This system provides comparable diagnostic image quality and semiquantitative accuracy, improved TD, and has the advantage of shorter scan durations.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyAgedFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMaleMiddle AgedFluorodeoxyglucose F182-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucoseFDGLong axial field-of-viewOncologyPET/CTProspective study

Identifiers

PMID39093483
PMCPMC11436434

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.