Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 13/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Original Article

Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients

Authors: Elske Quak, Pierre-Yves Le Roux, Michael S. Hofman, Philippe Robin, David Bourhis, Jason Callahan, David Binns, Cédric Desmonts, Pierre-Yves Salaun, Rodney J. Hicks, Nicolas Aide

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 13/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
Graham MM, Wahl RL, Hoffman JM, Yap JT, Sunderland JJ, Boellaard R, et al. Summary of the UPICT Protocol for FDG PET/CT Imaging in Oncology Clinical Trials. J Nucl Med. 2015.
5.
6.
Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181–200.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
7.
Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014.
8.
Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, Brown ML, Royal HD, Siegel BA, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:885–95.PubMed
9.
Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Quak E, Gervais R, Do P, Dubos-Arvis C, et al. Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:985–96.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Lee YS, Kim JS, Kim KM, Kang JH, Lim SM, Kim HJ. Performance measurement of PSF modeling reconstruction (True X) on Siemens Biograph TruePoint TrueV PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2014;28:340–8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Jakoby BW, Bercier Y, Conti M, Casey ME, Bendriem B, Townsend DW. Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:2375–89.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Alessio AM, Stearns CW, Tong S, Ross SG, Kohlmyer S, Ganin A, et al. Application and evaluation of a measured spatially variant system model for PET image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010;29:938–49.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
15.
Zeng GL. Gibbs artifact reduction by nonnegativity constraint. J Nucl Med Technol. 2011;39:213–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Sunderland JJ, Christian PE. Quantitative PET/CT scanner performance characterization based upon the society of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging clinical trials network oncology clinical simulator phantom. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:145–52.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Rausch I, Bergmann H, Geist B, Schaffarich M, Hirtl A, Hacker M, et al. Variation of system performance, quality control standards and adherence to international FDG-PET/CT imaging guidelines. A national survey of PET/CT operations in Austria. Nuklearmedizin. 2014;53:242–8.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773–82.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S–50S.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
21.
Lodge MA, Chaudhry MA, Wahl RL. Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1041–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
22.
Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, Meignan M, Hutchings M, Mueller SP, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International conference on malignant lymphomas imaging working group. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3048–58.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Quak E, Hovhannisyan N, Lasnon C, Fruchart C, Vilque JP, Musafiri D, et al. The importance of harmonizing interim positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: focus on the Deauville criteria. Haematologica. 2014;99:e84–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
24.
Hasenclever D, Kurch L, Mauz-Korholz C, Elsner A, Georgi T, Wallace H, et al. qPET - a quantitative extension of the Deauville scale to assess response in interim FDG-PET scans in lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1301–8.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, Hoekstra O, Paans A, Visser E, et al. Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:392–404.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Lasnon C, Hicks RJ, Beauregard JM, Milner A, Paciencia M, Guizard AV, et al. Impact of point spread function reconstruction on thoracic lymph node staging with 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:971–6.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Akamatsu G, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Tsutsui Y, Baba S, Sasaki M. Influences of point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstructions on standardized uptake value of lymph node metastases in FDG-PET. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:226–30.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Makris NE, Huisman MC, Kinahan PE, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R. Evaluation of strategies towards harmonization of FDG PET/CT studies in multicentre trials: comparison of scanner validation phantoms and data analysis procedures. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1507–15.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Brendle C, Kupferschlager J, Nikolaou K, La FC, Gatidis S, Pfannenberg C. Is the standard uptake value (SUV) appropriate for quantification in clinical PET imaging? Variability induced by different SUV measurements and varying reconstruction methods. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:158–62.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Bellevre D, Blanc FC, Switsers O, Dugue AE, Levy C, Allouache D, et al. Staging the axilla in breast cancer patients with (1)(8)F-FDG PET: how small are the metastases that we can detect with new generation clinical PET systems? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1103–12.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
31.
Boellaard R. Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med. 2011;52 Suppl 2:93S–100S.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients
Authors
Elske Quak
Pierre-Yves Le Roux
Michael S. Hofman
Philippe Robin
David Bourhis
Jason Callahan
David Binns
Cédric Desmonts
Pierre-Yves Salaun
Rodney J. Hicks
Nicolas Aide
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 13/2015
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0

Other articles of this Issue 13/2015

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 13/2015 Go to the issue

Original Article

Difficulties in deciding whether to ablate patients with putatively “low–intermediate-risk” differentiated thyroid carcinoma: do guidelines mainly apply in the centres that produce them? Results of a retrospective, two-centre quality assurance study

Original Article

Gastric injury from 90Y to left hepatic lobe tumors adjacent to the stomach: fact or fiction?

Original Article

A pilot study imaging integrin αvβ3 with RGD PET/CT in suspected lung cancer patients

Editorial Commentary

Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT): clinical significance of re-treatment?

Original Article

FDG-PET/CT findings in systemic mastocytosis: a French multicentre study

Original Article

The efficacy of 177Lu-labelled peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in patients with neuroendocrine tumours: a meta-analysis