Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients
Open Access
- 30 July 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
- Vol. 42 (13), 2072-2082
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0
Abstract
Point-spread function (PSF) or PSF + time-of-flight (TOF) reconstruction may improve lesion detection in oncologic PET, but can alter quantitation resulting in variable standardized uptake values (SUVs) between different PET systems. This study aims to validate a proprietary software tool (EQ.PET) to harmonize SUVs across different PET systems independent of the reconstruction algorithm used. NEMA NU2 phantom data were used to calculate the appropriate filter for each PSF or PSF+TOF reconstruction from three different PET systems, in order to obtain EANM compliant recovery coefficients. PET data from 517 oncology patients were reconstructed with a PSF or PSF+TOF reconstruction for optimal tumour detection and an ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM3D) reconstruction known to fulfil EANM guidelines. Post-reconstruction, the proprietary filter was applied to the PSF or PSF+TOF data (PSFEQ or PSF+TOFEQ). SUVs for PSF or PSF+TOF and PSFEQ or PSF+TOFEQ were compared to SUVs for the OSEM3D reconstruction. The impact of potential confounders on the EQ.PET methodology including lesion and patient characteristics was studied, as was the adherence to imaging guidelines. For the 1380 tumour lesions studied, Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean ratio between PSF or PSF+TOF and OSEM3D of 1.46 (95 %CI: 0.86–2.06) and 1.23 (95 %CI: 0.95–1.51) for SUVmax and SUVpeak, respectively. Application of the proprietary filter improved these ratios to 1.02 (95 %CI: 0.88–1.16) and 1.04 (95 %CI: 0.92–1.17) for SUVmax and SUVpeak, respectively. The influence of the different confounding factors studied (lesion size, location, radial offset and patient’s BMI) was less than 5 %. Adherence to the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) guidelines for tumour imaging was good. These data indicate that it is not necessary to sacrifice the superior lesion detection and image quality achieved by newer reconstruction techniques in the quest for harmonizing quantitative comparability between PET systems. The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.Keywords
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- Resolution modeling in PET imaging: Theory, practice, benefits, and pitfallsMedical Physics, 2013
- Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patientsEuropean Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2013
- Noise Considerations for PET Quantification Using Maximum and Peak Standardized Uptake ValueJournal of Nuclear Medicine, 2012
- Gibbs Artifact Reduction by Nonnegativity ConstraintJournal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, 2011
- SUVref: reducing reconstruction-dependent variation in PET SUVEJNMMI Research, 2011
- FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2009
- From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid TumorsJournal of Nuclear Medicine, 2009
- Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parametersEuropean Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2006
- Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendationsEuropean Journal of Cancer, 1999
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986