Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 251

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Added Value of SPECT/CT Fusion in Assessing Suspected Bone Metastasis: Comparison with Scintigraphy Alone and Nonfused Scintigraphy and CT

Utsunomiya, Daisuke, Shiraishi, Shinya, Imuta, Masanori, Tomiguchi, Seiji, Kawanaka, Koichi, Morishita, Shoji, Awai, Kazuo, Yamashita, Yasuyuki·2006·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate retrospectively if there is additional diagnostic value of fused single photon emission computed tomographic (SPECT) and computed tomographic (CT) images in assessing possible bone metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained, and each patient provided written informed consent. Bone scintigraphy--including planar and SPECT imaging-and CT were performed with a combined SPECT/CT system in 45 oncologic patients (24 men, 21 women; mean age, 64.7 years +/- 8.7), with a total of 42 metastatic bone foci and 40 benign foci. The reference standard was follow-up radiologic imaging. Two independent readers first analyzed only bone scintigraphic images and next analyzed two separate sets of bone scintigraphic and CT images. They then analyzed bone scintigraphic, CT, and fused images and focused on the additional value of fused images. Diagnostic confidence for each lesion was scored. The three analyses were performed 7 days apart, and the images were presented in random order at each session. The value of additional fused images was assessed by using receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: After review of fused images to classify indeterminate lesions, reviewer 1 became more confident in diagnosis of the 15 benign lesions and two metastases, and reviewer 2 became more confident in diagnosis of the seven benign lesions and one metastasis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for reviewer 1 was 0.589 for scintigraphic images, 0.831 for separate data sets of scintigraphic and CT images, and 0.947 for fused images. The corresponding areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for reviewer 2 were 0.771, 0.885, and 0.968, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate the increased diagnostic confidence obtained with fused SPECT/CT images compared with separate sets of scintigraphic and CT images in differentiating malignant from benign bone lesions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.2373041358

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 251

Metadata

Authors
Utsunomiya, D., Shiraishi, S., Imuta, M., Tomiguchi, S., Kawanaka, K., Morishita, S., Awai, K., & Yamashita, Y.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2006-01
Volume
238
Issue
1
Pages
264-271
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2050035270
Cited by
251
References
1
FWCI
13.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Added Value of SPECT/CT Fusion in Assessing Suspected Bone Metastasis: Comparison with Scintigraphy Alone and Nonfused Scintigraphy and CT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2373041358
The paper
Utsunomiya, D., Shiraishi, S., Imuta, M., Tomiguchi, S., Kawanaka, K., Morishita, S., Awai, K., & Yamashita, Y. (2006). Added Value of SPECT/CT Fusion in Assessing Suspected Bone Metastasis: Comparison with Scintigraphy Alone and Nonfused Scintigraphy and CT. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2373041358

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.