Etchebehere EC, Hobbs BP, Milton DR, et al. Assessing the role of 18F-FDG PET and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of soft tissue musculoskeletal malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(5):860–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3242-z.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zou Y, Tong J, Leng H, Jiang J, Pan M, Chen Z. Diagnostic value of using 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in immunocompetent patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8(25):41518–28. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.17456.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

De Raffele E, Mirarchi M, Cuicchi D, Lecce F, Cola B. Evolving role of FDG-PET/CT in prognostic evaluation of resectable gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23(38):6923–6. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i38.6923.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Zhang X, Guan Z. PET/CT in the diagnosis and prognosis of osteosarcoma. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2018;23(11):2157–65. https://doi.org/10.2741/4696.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Nuvoli S, Fiore V, Babudieri S, et al. The additional role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in prosthetic valve endocarditis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2018;22(6):1744–51. https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_201803_14590.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Narayanan P, Sahdev A. The role of 18F-FDG PET CT in common gynaecological malignancies. Br J Radiol. 2017;90(1079):20170283. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170283.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Rottenburger C, Mensch N, Imfeld S, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT compared with ultrasound and biopsy for detection of vasculitis of the temporal artery branches. Swiss Med Wkly. 2021;151:20512. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2021.20512.

Article  Google Scholar 

Slart R, Glaudemans A, Gheysens O, et al. Procedural recommendations of cardiac PET/CT imaging: standardization in inflammatory-, infective-, infiltrative-, and innervation (4Is)-related cardiovascular diseases: a joint collaboration of the EACVI and the EANM. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(4):1016–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05066-5.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ganapathy-Kanniappan S, Geschwind JFH. Tumor glycolysis as a target for cancer therapy: progress and prospects. Mol Cancer. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-4598-12-152.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Granchi C, Fancelli D, Minutolo F. An update on therapeutic opportunities offered by cancer glycolytic metabolism. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2014;24(21):4915–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmcl.2014.09.041.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

van Sluis J, Boellaard R, Somasundaram A, et al. Image quality and semiquantitative measurements on the biograph vision PET/CT system: initial experiences and comparison with the biograph mCT. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(1):129–35. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.227801.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hausmann D, Dinter DJ, Sadick M, Brade J, Schoenberg SO, Büsing K. The impact of acquisition time on image quality in whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT for cancer staging. J Nucl Med Technol. 2012;40(4):255–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.112.103291.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

van Sluis J, de Jong J, Schaar J, et al. Performance characteristics of the digital biograph vision PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(7):1031–6. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.215418.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Surti S, Pantel AR, Karp JS. Total body PET: why, how, what for? IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci. 2020;4(3):283–92. https://doi.org/10.1109/trpms.2020.2985403.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Vandenberghe S, Moskal P, Karp JS. State of the art in total body PET. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7(1):35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-00290-2.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Cherry SR, Jones T, Karp JS, Qi J, Moses WW, Badawi RD. Total-body PET: maximizing sensitivity to create new opportunities for clinical research and patient care. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(1):3–12. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.184028.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Spencer BA, Berg E, Schmall JP, et al. Performance evaluation of the uEXPLORER total-body PET/CT scanner based on NEMA NU 2–2018 with additional tests to characterize PET scanners with a long axial field of view. J Nucl Med. 2021;62(6):861–70. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.250597.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Tan H, Sui X, Yin H, et al. Total-body PET/CT using half-dose FDG and compared with conventional PET/CT using full-dose FDG in lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(6):1966–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05091-4.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hu P, Zhang Y, Yu H, et al. Total-body 18F-FDG PET/CT scan in oncology patients: how fast could it be? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(8):2384–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05357-5.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Morey AM, Kadrmas DJ. Effect of varying number of OSEM subsets on PET lesion detectability. J Nucl Med Technol. 2013;41(4):268–73. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.113.131904.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Razifar P, Sandström M, Schnieder H, et al. Noise correlation in PET, CT, SPECT and PET/CT data evaluated using autocorrelation function: a phantom study on data, reconstructed using FBP and OSEM. BMC Med Imaging. 2005;5:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-5-5.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Mehranian A, Wollenweber SD, Walker MD, et al. Image enhancement of whole-body oncology [18F]-FDG PET scans using deep neural networks to reduce noise. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(2):539–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05478-x.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sah BR, Stolzmann P, Delso G, et al. Clinical evaluation of a block sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm in 18F-FDG PET/CT studies. Nucl Med Commun. 2017;38(1):57–66. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000604.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lantos J, Mittra ES, Levin CS, Iagaru A. Standard OSEM versus regularized PET image reconstruction: qualitative and quantitative comparison using phantom data and various clinical radiopharmaceuticals. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;8(2):110–8.

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Sui X, Tan H, Yu H, et al. Exploration of the total-body PET/CT reconstruction protocol with ultra-low 18F-FDG activity over a wide range of patient body mass indices. EJNMMI Phys. 2022;9(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-022-00445-3.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Yu H, Gu Y, Fan W, et al. Expert consensus on oncological [18F]FDG total-body PET/CT imaging (version 1). Eur Radiol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08960-8.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Sonni I, Baratto L, Park S, et al. Initial experience with a SiPM-based PET/CT scanner: influence of acquisition time on image quality. EJNMMI Phys. 2018;5(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-018-0207-x.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Alberts I, Hunermund JN, Prenosil G, et al. Clinical performance of long axial field of view PET/CT: a head-to-head intra-individual comparison of the biograph vision quadra with the biograph vision PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(8):2395–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05282-7.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Molina-Duran F, Dinter D, Schoenahl F, Schoenberg SO, Glatting G. Dependence of image quality on acquisition time for the PET/CT Biograph mCT. Z Med Phys. 2014;24(1):73–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2013.03.002.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Rausch I, Cal-González J, Dapra D, et al. Performance evaluation of the Biograph mCT Flow PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard. EJNMMI Phys. 2015;2(1):26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-015-0132-1.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Karlberg AM, Sæther O, Eikenes L, Goa PE. Quantitative comparison of PET performance-siemens biograph mCT and mMR. EJNMMI Phys. 2016;3(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-016-0142-7.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Bettinardi V, Presotto L, Rapisarda E, Picchio M, Gianolli L, Gilardi MC. Physical performance of the new hybrid PET∕CT discovery-690. Med Phys. 2011;38(10):5394–411. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3635220.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zhao YM, Li YH, Chen T, et al. Image quality and lesion detectability in low-dose pediatric 18F-FDG scans using total-body PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(11):3378–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05304-4.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar