| Title |
Causes and imaging features of false positives and false negatives on 18F-PET/CT in oncologic imaging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-010-0062-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Niamh M. Long, Clare S. Smith |
| Abstract |
BACKGROUND: 18F-FDG is a glucose analogue that is taken up by a wide range of malignancies. 18F-FDG PET-CT is now firmly established as an accurate method for the staging and restaging of various cancers. However, 18F-FDG also accumulates in normal tissue and other non-malignant conditions, and some malignancies do not take up F18-FDG or have a low affinity for the tracer, leading to false-positive and false-negative interpretations. METHODS: PET-CT allows for the correlation of two separate imaging modalities, combining both morphological and metabolic information. We should use the CT to help interpret the PET findings. In this article we will highlight specific false-negative and false-positive findings that one should be aware of when interpreting oncology scans. RESULTS: We aim to highlight post-treatment conditions that are encountered routinely on restaging scans that can lead to false-positive interpretations. We will emphasise the importance of using the CT component to help recognise these entities to allow improved diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: In light of the increased use of PET-CT, it is important that nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists be aware of these conditions and correlate the PET and CT components to avoid misdiagnosis, over staging of disease and unnecessary biopsies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Cyprus | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 15% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Researcher | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 11% |
| Other | 25 | 20% |
| Unknown | 25 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 44% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 7 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
| Engineering | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 14% |
| Unknown | 29 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,621,438
of 25,069,047 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#71
of 1,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,139
of 130,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,069,047 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 130,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.