Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText.
Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>
A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences
Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

suck abstract from ncbi


10.1186/s13550-019-0569-7

http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1186/s13550-019-0569-7
suck pdf from google scholar
31823097!6904705!31823097
unlimited free pdf from europmc31823097    free
PDF from PMC    free
html from PMC    free

suck abstract from ncbi


Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534

Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
pmid31823097      EJNMMI+Res 2019 ; 9 (1): 106
Nephropedia Template TP

gab.com Text

Twit Text FOAVip

Twit Text #

English Wikipedia


  • SUV variability in EARL-accredited conventional and digital PET #MMPMID31823097
  • Koopman D; Jager PL; Slump CH; Knollema S; van Dalen JA
  • EJNMMI Res 2019[Dec]; 9 (1): 106 PMID31823097show ga
  • BACKGROUND: A high SUV-reproducibility is crucial when different PET scanners are in use. We evaluated the SUV variability in whole-body FDG-PET scans of patients with suspected or proven cancer using an EARL-accredited conventional and digital PET scanner. In a head-to-head comparison we studied images of 50 patients acquired on a conventional scanner (cPET, Ingenuity TF PET/CT, Philips) and compared them with images acquired on a digital scanner (dPET, Vereos PET/CT, Philips). The PET scanning order was randomised and EARL-compatible reconstructions were applied. We measured SUV(mean), SUV(peak), SUV(max) and lesion diameter in up to 5 FDG-positive lesions per patient. The relative difference DeltaSUV between cPET and dPET was calculated for each SUV-parameter. Furthermore, we calculated repeatability coefficients, reflecting the 95% confidence interval of DeltaSUV. RESULTS: We included 128 lesions with an average size of 19 +/- 14 mm. Average DeltaSUVs were 6-8% with dPET values being higher for all three SUV-parameters (p < 0.001). DeltaSUV(max) was significantly higher than DeltaSUV(mean) (8% vs. 6%, p = 0.002) and than DeltaSUV(peak) (8% vs. 7%, p = 0.03). Repeatability coefficients across individual lesions were 27% (DeltaSUV(mean) and DeltaSUV(peak)) and 33% (DeltaSUV(max)) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: With EARL-accredited conventional and digital PET, we found a limited SUV variability with average differences up to 8%. Furthermore, only a limited number of lesions showed a SUV difference of more than 30%. These findings indicate that EARL standardisation works. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This prospective study was registered on the 31th of October 2017 at ClinicalTrials.cov. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03457506?id=03457506&rank=1.
  • ä


  • DeepDyve
  • Pubget Overpricing
  • suck abstract from ncbi

    Linkout box