Cited by 111Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

Effects of Nonionic Intravenous Contrast Agents at PET/CT Imaging: Phantom and Canine Studies

Nakamoto, Yuji, Chin, Bennett B., Kraitchman, Dara L., Lawler, Leo P., Marshall, Laura T., Wahl, Richard L.·2003·Radiology

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the effects of intravenous contrast agents on quantitative values obtained with a combined positron emission tomographic (PET) and computed tomographic (CT) scanner by using several phantoms and a dog. Materials and methods Fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) was mixed with different concentrations of contrast agent with the same syringe (phantom 1), and the phantom was scanned. After image reconstruction with various attenuation maps, radioactivity concentrations were compared. Then, FDG solutions with (phantom 2) or surrounded by (phantom 3) various concentrations of contrast agent were scanned repeatedly, and radioactivity concentration was compared. Finally, PET and CT with and without contrast agent were performed in a dog. PET images were reconstructed by using different attenuation maps, and radioactivity concentrations were compared. The radioactivity concentration on germanium 68 (68Ge)-based corrected images was regarded as standard, and percentage bias, defined as difference divided by measured activity of 68Ge-based corrected images, was assessed. The relationship between the concentration of contrast agent and the percentage bias was assessed with the Pearson coefficient r, and the significance of correlations was evaluated with the Fisher z test. Results All phantom studies demonstrated that presence of a contrast agent resulted in overestimation of emission data. CT numbers showed a strong positive correlation with the percentage bias in…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.2273020299

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In organs with a particularly high concentration of contrast agent (e.g., liver, kidney, or blood vessels), contrast-induced SUV deviations can be higher.

    “However, in organs with a particularly high concentration of the contrast agent (e.g., the liver, kidney, or blood vessels), these deviations can be higher [116,120,121].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [120]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nakamoto, Y., Chin, B. B., Kraitchman, D. L., Lawler, L. P., Marshall, L. T., & Wahl, R. L.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins Medicine (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
Radiology
Published
2003-06
Volume
227
Issue
3
Pages
817-824
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W1995453959
Cited by
111
References
17
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
10.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Keywords
PET/CT, fluorodeoxyglucose, attenuation correction, attenuation map, Hounsfield units, phantom study, canine model, PET quantification
MeSH terms
Animals, Contrast Media, Dogs, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Injections, Intravenous, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Phantoms, Imaging, Radiopharmaceuticals, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review