Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Clinical Performance of Analog and Digital 18F-FDG PET/CT in Pediatric Epileptogenic Zone Localization: Preliminary Results
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Clinical Performance of Analog and Digital 18F-FDG PET/CT in Pediatric Epileptogenic Zone Localization: Preliminary Results
Do you wish to request the book?
Clinical Performance of Analog and Digital 18F-FDG PET/CT in Pediatric Epileptogenic Zone Localization: Preliminary Results
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Clinical Performance of Analog and Digital 18F-FDG PET/CT in Pediatric Epileptogenic Zone Localization: Preliminary Results
2025
Overview
Background: Despite its central role in pediatric pre-surgical evaluation of drug-resistant focal epilepsy, conventional analog 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET/CT (aPET) systems often yield modest epileptogenic zone (EZ) detection rates (~50–60%). Silicon photomultiplier–based digital PET/CT (dPET) promises enhanced image quality, but its performance in pediatric epilepsy remains untested. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 22 children (mean age 11.5 ± 2.6 years) who underwent interictal brain 18F-FDG PET/CT: 11 on an analog system (Discovery ST, 2018–2019) and 11 on a digital system (Biograph Vision 450, 2020–2021). Three blinded nuclear medicine physicians independently scored EZ localization and image quality (4-point scale); post-surgical histology and ≥1-year clinical follow-up served as reference. Results: The EZ was correctly identified in 8/11 analog scans (72.7%) versus 10/11 digital scans (90.9%). Average image quality was significantly higher with dPET (3.0 ± 0.9 vs. 2.1 ± 0.9; p < 0.05), and inter-reader agreement improved from good (ICC = 0.63) to excellent (ICC = 0.91). Conclusions: Our preliminary findings suggest that dPET enhances image clarity and reader consistency, potentially improving localization accuracy in pediatric epilepsy presurgical workups.
