The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Impact of Acquisition Time on Image Quality in Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET/CT for Cancer Staging
Open accessAbstract
UNLABELLED: Our objective was to evaluate the impact of acquisition time on image quality, lesion detection rate, standardized uptake values, and lesion volume for (18)F-FDG PET in cancer patients. METHODS: Over 7 mo, 33 cancer patients were included in this study. In these patients, 63 lesions were independently evaluated by 2 nuclear medicine specialists (experienced and beginner). Two consecutive whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans using a 3-min and 1.5-min acquisition time per bed position were obtained for each patient. Lesions were visually identified, and their locations were compared. The lesion volumes and standardized uptake values of the primary tumor, lymph nodes, and metastases were determined and compared. Image quality was scored using a 5-range Likert-type scale. For all parameters, interobserver agreement was assessed. RESULTS: All relevant lesions could be identified at both acquisition times. Image quality was slightly adversely affected by an acquisition time of 1.5 min but was excellent or good in 85% of the scans. In a patient with increased blood sugar levels, the image quality was rated moderate at 3 min and poor at 1.5 min. The quality of lesion visualization was excellent regardless of the acquisition time. Lesion volume and maximum standardized uptake value on PET images showed an excellent correlation between the 2 acquisition times (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.99 and 0.97, respectively). Interobserver agreement was excellent (κ > 0.83). CONCLUSION: Although image quality is slightly poorer, reducing the acquisition time to 1.5 min per bed position seems to be clinically feasible without decreasing the lesion detection rate even for less experienced observers.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, systematic SUVmax increases of >5–10% have not typically been observed at acquisition times per bed position of >30–60s, at least during investigations of SiPM-equipped systems and/or patients with BMI <25 kg/m2 [79,81,82].”
From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [82]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Cites
New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)
Eisenhauer, E. A., Therasse, P., Bogaerts, J., Schwartz, L. H., Sargent, D., Ford, R., Dancey, J., Arbuck, S., Gwyther, S., Mooney, M., et al. (2009) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 · Cited by 29,534
Caldwell, C. B., Mah, K., Ung, Y., Danjoux, C. E., Balogh, J. M., Ganguli, S., & Ehrlich, L. E. (2001) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/s0360-3016(01)01722-9 · Cited by 320
Jabour, B. A., Choi, Y. H., Hoh, C. K., Rege, S., Soong, J. C., Lufkin, R. B., Hanafee, W. N., Maddahi, J., Chaiken, L. M., & Bailet, J. W. (1993) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.186.1.8416578 · Cited by 231
Acquisition protocol considerations for combined PET/CT imaging.
Beyer, T., Antoch, G., Müller, S. P., Egelhof, T., Freudenberg, L. S., Debatin, J. F., & Bockisch, A. (2004) · PubMed · Cited by 231
Lan, X., Zhang, Y.-X., Wu, Z.-J., Jia, Q., Wei, H., & Gao, Z. (2008) · Clinical Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.crad.2008.01.003 · Cited by 98
Shinya, T., Rai, K., Okumura, Y., Fujiwara, K., Matsuo, K., Yonei, T., Sato, T., Watanabe, K., Kawai, H., Sato, S., et al. (2009) · Clinical Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1097/rlu.0b013e31819a1f3d · Cited by 60
Brændengen, M., Hansson, K., Radu, C., Siegbahn, A., Jacobsson, H., & Glimelius, B. L. G. (2011) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.03.031 · Cited by 54
Farquhar, T. H., Llacer, J., Sayre, J. W., Tai, Y., & Hoffman, E. J. (2000) · PubMed · Cited by 42
Dual-phase FDG-PET: delayed acquisition improves hepatic detectability of pathological uptake
Arena, V., Skanjeti, A., Casoni, R., Douroukas, A., & Pelosi, E. (2008) · La radiologia medica · doi:10.1007/s11547-008-0287-0 · Cited by 38
Huang, Y.-E., Chen, C., Huang, Y.-J., Konda, S. D., Appelbaum, D., & Pu, Y. (2010) · Acta Radiologica · doi:10.3109/02841851.2010.497772 · Cited by 32
Cited by
Tan, H., Sui, X., Yin, H., Yu, H., Gu, Y., Chen, S., Hu, P., Mao, W., & Shi, H. (2020) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-020-05091-4 · Cited by 129
Sher, A., Lacoeuille, F., Fosse, P., Vervueren, L., Cahouet-Vannier, A., Dabli, D., Bouchet, F., & Couturier, O. (2016) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-016-0177-8 · Cited by 111
Dosage optimization in positron emission tomography: state-of-the-art methods and future prospects.
Karakatsanis, N. A., Fokou, E., & Tsoumpas, C. (2015) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 55
Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation
Rogasch, J. M. M., Hofheinz, F., van Heek, L., Voltin, C.-A., Boellaard, R., & Kobe, C. (2022) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics12020451 · Cited by 57
Optimization of PET protocol and interrater reliability of 18F-PSMA-11 imaging of prostate cancer
Piron, S., Man, K. D., Schelfhout, V., Laeken, N. V., Kersemans, K., Achten, E., Vos, F. D., & Ost, P. (2020) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-020-0593-7 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Hausmann, D., Dinter, D. J., Sadick, M., Brade, J., Schoenberg, S. O., & Busing, K.
- Affiliations
- Heidelberg University (DE)
- ORCID
- Hausmann, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
- Publisher
- Society of Nuclear Medicine
- Published
- 2012-10-15
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 255-258
- ISSN
- 0091-4916 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2170056898
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 1.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
- Keywords
- 18F-FDG PET/CT, acquisition time, whole-body imaging, tumor staging, image quality, lesion detection rate, standardized uptake value, lesion volume, interobserver agreement, blood glucose, scan time reduction
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Neoplasms, Quality Control, Time Factors, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Observer Variation, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Tumor Burden, Positron-Emission Tomography, Whole Body Imaging, Multimodal Imaging
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
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.
