Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

Open Access 01-08-2017 | Review Article

EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies

Authors: Nicolas Aide, Charline Lasnon, Patrick Veit-Haibach, Terez Sera, Bernhard Sattler, Ronald Boellaard

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Special Issue 1/2017

Abstract

Quantitative positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can be used as diagnostic or prognostic tools (i.e. single measurement) or for therapy monitoring (i.e. longitudinal studies) in multicentre studies. Use of quantitative parameters, such as standardized uptake values (SUVs), metabolic active tumor volumes (MATVs) or total lesion glycolysis (TLG), in a multicenter setting requires that these parameters be comparable among patients and sites, regardless of the PET/CT system used. This review describes the motivations and the methodologies for quantitative PET/CT performance harmonization with emphasis on the EANM Research Ltd. (EARL) Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT accreditation program, one of the international harmonization programs aiming at using FDG PET as a quantitative imaging biomarker. In addition, future accreditation initiatives will be discussed. The validation of the EARL accreditation program to harmonize SUVs and MATVs is described in a wide range of tumor types, with focus on therapy assessment using either the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria or PET Evaluation Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), as well as liver-based scales such as the Deauville score. Finally, also presented in this paper are the results from a survey across 51 EARL-accredited centers reporting how the program was implemented and its impact on daily routine and in clinical trials, harmonization of new metrics such as MATV and heterogeneity features.

Decazes P, Metivier D, Rouquette A, Talbot JN, Kerrou K. A method to improve the semiquantification of 18F-FDG uptake: reliability of the estimated lean body mass using the conventional, low-dose CT from PET/CT. J Nucl med. 2016;57:753–8. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.164913.CrossRefPubMed

Devriese J, Beels L, Maes A, Van De Wiele C, Gheysens O, Pottel H. Review of clinically accessible methods to determine lean body mass for normalization of standardized uptake values. The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging: official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) and the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR), and Section of the So. 2016;60:1–11.

Tahari AK, Chien D, Azadi JR, Wahl RL. Optimum lean body formulation for correction of standardized uptake value in PET imaging. J Nucl med. 2014;55:1481–4. doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.136986.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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. 2015;42:328–54. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.

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. doi:10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4.

van Baardwijk A, Bosmans G, Boersma L, Buijsen J, Wanders S, Hochstenbag M, et al. PET-CT-based auto-contouring in non-small-cell lung cancer correlates with pathology and reduces interobserver variability in the delineation of the primary tumor and involved nodal volumes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68:771–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.067.CrossRefPubMed

Cheebsumon P, Boellaard R, de Ruysscher D, van Elmpt W, van Baardwijk A, Yaqub M, et al. Assessment of tumour size in PET/CT lung cancer studies: PET- and CT-based methods compared to pathology. EJNMMI res. 2012;2:56. doi:10.1186/2191-219x-2-56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Cheebsumon P, van Velden FH, Yaqub M, Frings V, de Langen AJ, Hoekstra OS, et al. Effects of image characteristics on performance of tumor delineation methods: a test-retest assessment. Journal of Nuclear Medicine : Official Publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2011;52:1550–8. doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.088914.CrossRef

Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, van Velden FH, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R. Impact of [(1)(8)F]FDG PET imaging parameters on automatic tumour delineation: need for improved tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:2136–44. doi:10.1007/s00259-011-1899-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Mikhaeel NG, Smith D, Dunn JT, Phillips M, Moller H, Fields PA, et al. Combination of baseline metabolic tumour volume and early response on PET/CT improves progression-free survival prediction in DLBCL. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1209–19. doi:10.1007/s00259-016-3315-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Pierce LA 2nd, Elston BF, Clunie DA, Nelson D, Kinahan PE. A digital reference object to analyze calculation accuracy of PET standardized uptake value. Radiology. 2015;277:538–45. doi:10.1148/radiol.2015141262.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Kalemis A, Delattre BM, Heinzer S. Sequential whole-body PET/MR scanner: concept, clinical use, and optimisation after two years in the clinic. The manufacturer’s perspective. Magma (New York, NY). 2013;26:5–23. doi:10.1007/s10334-012-0330-y.

13.

Delso G, Furst S, Jakoby B, Ladebeck R, Ganter C, Nekolla SG, et al. Performance measurements of the Siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Nucl med. 2011;52:1914–22. doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.092726.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Grant AM, Deller TW, Khalighi MM, Maramraju SH, Delso G, Levin CS. NEMA NU 2-2012 performance studies for the SiPM-based ToF-PET component of the GE SIGNA PET/MR system. Med Phys. 2016;43:2334. doi:10.1118/1.4945416.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Delso G, Wiesinger F, Sacolick LI, Kaushik SS, Shanbhag DD, Hullner M, et al. Clinical evaluation of zero-echo-time MR imaging for the segmentation of the skull. J Nucl med. 2015;56:417–22. doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.149997.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Wiesinger F, Sacolick LI, Menini A, Kaushik SS, Ahn S, Veit-Haibach P, et al. Zero TE MR bone imaging in the head. Magn Reson med. 2016;75:107–14. doi:10.1002/mrm.25545.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Burgos N, Cardoso MJ, Modat M, Punwani S, Atkinson D, Arridge SR, et al. CT synthesis in the head & neck region for PET/MR attenuation correction: an iterative multi-atlas approach. EJNMMI Physics. 2015;2:A31. doi:10.1186/2197-7364-2-s1-a31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Burgos N, Cardoso MJ, Thielemans K, Modat M, Dickson J, Schott JM, et al. Multi-contrast attenuation map synthesis for PET/MR scanners: assessment on FDG and Florbetapir PET tracers. Eur J Nucl med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1447–58. doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3082-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Leynes AP, Yang J, Shanbhag DD, Kaushik SS, Seo Y, Hope TA, et al. Hybrid ZTE/Dixon MR-based attenuation correction for quantitative uptake estimation of pelvic lesions in PET/MRI. Med Phys. 2017;44:902–13. doi:10.1002/mp.12122.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Sekine T, Buck A, Delso G, Ter Voert EE, Huellner M, Veit-Haibach P, et al. Evaluation of atlas-based attenuation correction for integrated PET/MR in human brain: application of a head atlas and comparison to true CT-based attenuation correction. J Nucl med. 2016;57:215–20. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.159228.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Yang J, Jian Y, Jenkins N, Behr SC, Hope TA, Larson PE, et al. Quantitative evaluation of atlas-based attenuation correction for brain PET in an integrated time-of-flight PET/MR imaging system. Radiology. 2017;161603 doi:10.1148/radiol.2017161603.

22.

Ziegler S, Jakoby BW, Braun H, Paulus DH, Quick HH. NEMA image quality phantom measurements and attenuation correction in integrated PET/MR hybrid imaging. EJNMMI Physics. 2015;2:18. doi:10.1186/s40658-015-0122-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Beyer T, Lassen ML, Boellaard R, Delso G, Yaqub M, Sattler B, et al. Investigating the state-of-the-art in whole-body MR-based attenuation correction: an intra-individual, inter-system, inventory study on three clinical PET/MR systems. Magma (New York, NY). 2016;29:75–87. doi:10.1007/s10334-015-0505-4.

24.

Boellaard R, Rausch I, Beyer T, Delso G, Yaqub M, Quick HH, et al. Quality control for quantitative multicenter whole-body PET/MR studies: a NEMA image quality phantom study with three current PET/MR systems. Med Phys. 2015;42:5961–9. doi:10.1118/1.4930962.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Boellaard R, Hofman MB, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Accurate PET/MR quantification using time of flight MLAA image reconstruction. Molecular Imaging and Biology : MIB : the Official Publication of the Academy of Molecular Imaging. 2014;16:469–77. doi:10.1007/s11307-013-0716-x.CrossRef

26.

Nuyts J, Dupont P, Stroobants S, Benninck R, Mortelmans L, Suetens P. Simultaneous maximum a posteriori reconstruction of attenuation and activity distributions from emission sinograms. IEEE Trans med Imaging. 1999;18:393–403. doi:10.1109/42.774167.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Samarin A, Burger C, Wollenweber SD, Crook DW, Burger IA, Schmid DT, et al. PET/MR imaging of bone lesions--implications for PET quantification from imperfect attenuation correction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1154–60. doi:10.1007/s00259-012-2113-0.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):11S–20S. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057182.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Bellevre D, Blanc Fournier C, 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. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2689-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Parvizi N, Franklin JM, McGowan DR, Teoh EJ, Bradley KM, Gleeson FV. Does a novel penalized likelihood reconstruction of 18F-FDG PET-CT improve signal-to-background in colorectal liver metastases? Eur J Radiol. 2015; doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.06.025.

31.

Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Macpherson RE, Bradley KM, Gleeson FV. Phantom and clinical evaluation of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q.Clear on an LYSO PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2015; doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.159301.

32.

van der Vos CS, Koopman D, S. R, Arends AJ, Boellaard R, van Dalen JA, et al. Quantification, improvement and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3727-z.

33.

Beyer T, Czernin J, Freudenberg LS. Variations in clinical PET/CT operations: results of an international survey of active PET/CT users. J Nucl med. 2011;52:303–10. doi:10.2967/jnumed.110.079624.CrossRefPubMed

34.

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. doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.148056.CrossRefPubMed

35.

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 Nuclear Medicine. 2014;53:242–8. doi:10.3413/Nukmed-0665-14-05.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Graham MM, Badawi RD, Wahl RL. Variations in PET/CT methodology for oncologic imaging at U.S. academic medical centers: an imaging response assessment team survey. J Nucl med. 2011;52:311–7. doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.074104.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Boellaard R. Methodological aspects of multicenter studies with quantitative PET. Methods Mol Biol. 2011;727:335–49. doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-062-1_18.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Boellaard R. Mutatis mutandis: harmonize the standard! J Nucl med. 2012;53:1–3. doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.094763.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Graham MM, Wahl RL, Hoffman JM, Yap JT, Sunderland JJ, Boellaard R, et al. Summary of the UPICT protocol for 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in oncology clinical trials. J Nucl med. 2015;56:955–61. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.158402.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Panin VY, Kehren F, Michel C, Casey M. Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements. IEEE Trans med Imaging. 2006;25:907–21.CrossRefPubMed

41.

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. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2391-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Quak E, Le Roux PY, Hofman MS, Robin P, Bourhis D, Callahan J, et al. Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients. Eur J Nucl med Mol Imaging. 2015; doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0.

43.

Kelly MD, Declerck JM. SUVref: reducing reconstruction-dependent variation in PET SUV. EJNMMI res. 2011;1:16. doi:10.1186/2191-219X-1-16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

45.

Lasnon C, Salomon T, Desmonts C, Do P, Oulkhouir Y, Madelaine J, et al. Generating harmonized SUV within the EANM EARL accreditation program: software approach versus EARL-compliant reconstruction. Ann Nucl med. 2016; doi:10.1007/s12149-016-1135-2.

46.

Barrington SF, Kluge R. FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Eur J Nucl med Mol Imaging. 2017. doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3690-8.

47.

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. doi:10.3324/haematol.2014.104125.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Kuhnert G, Boellaard R, Sterzer S, Kahraman D, Scheffler M, Wolf J, et al. Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis. Eur J Nucl med Mol Imaging. 2015; doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3165-8.

49.

Barrington SF, Kluge R. FDG-PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017. doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3690-8.

50.

Pinker K, Riedl C, Weber WA. Evaluating tumor response with FDG PET: updates on PERCIST, comparison with EORTC criteria and clues to future developments. Eur J Nucl med Mol Imaging. 2017; doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3687-3.

51.

Quak E, Le Roux PY, Lasnon C, Robin P, Hofman MS, Bourhis D, et al. Does PET SUV harmonization affect PERCIST response classification? J Nucl med. 2016;57:1699–706. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.171983.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Lasnon C, Le Roux PY, Quak E, Robin P, Hofman MS, Bourhis D, et al. EORTC PET response criteria are more influenced by reconstruction inconsistencies than PERCIST, but both benefit from the EARL harmonization program. EJNMMI Phys. 2017;4(1):17. doi:10.1186/s40658-017-0185-4.

53.

Lasnon C, Enilorac B, Popotte H, Aide N. Impact of the EARL harmonization program on automatic delineation of metabolic active tumour volumes (MATVs). EJNMMI Res. 2017;7(1):30. doi:10.1186/s13550-017-0279-y.

54.

Desseroit MC, Visvikis D, Tixier F, Majdoub M, Perdrisot R, Guillevin R, et al. Development of a nomogram combining clinical staging with (18)F-FDG PET/CT image features in non-small-cell lung cancer stage I-III. Eur J Nucl med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1477–85. doi:10.1007/s00259-016-3325-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Hatt M, Tixier F, Pierce L, Kinahan PE, Le Rest CC, Visvikis D. Characterization of PET/CT images using texture analysis: the past, the present... Any future? Eur J Nucl med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:151–65. doi:10.1007/s00259-016-3427-0.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Lovinfosse P, Janvary ZL, Coucke P, Jodogne S, Bernard C, Hatt M, et al. FDG PET/CT texture analysis for predicting the outcome of lung cancer treated by stereotactic body radiation therapy. Eur J Nucl med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1453–60. doi:10.1007/s00259-016-3314-8.CrossRefPubMed

57.

van Velden FH, Kramer GM, Frings V, Nissen IA, Mulder ER, de Langen AJ, et al. Repeatability of Radiomic features in non-small-cell lung cancer [(18)F]FDG-PET/CT studies: impact of reconstruction and delineation. Molecular Imaging and Biology : MIB : the Official Publication of the Academy of Molecular Imaging. 2016;18:788–95. doi:10.1007/s11307-016-0940-2.CrossRef

58.

Lasnon C, Majdoub M, Lavigne B, Do P, Madelaine J, Visvikis D, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT heterogeneity quantification through textural features in the era of harmonisation programs: a focus on lung cancer. Eur J Nucl med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:2324–35. doi:10.1007/s00259-016-3441-2.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Lasnon C, Houdu B, Kammerer E, Salomon T, Devreese J, Lebasnier A, et al. Patient's weight: a neglected cause of variability in SUV measurements? A survey from an EARL accredited PET centre in 513 patients. Eur J Nucl med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:197–9. doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3214-3.CrossRefPubMed

60.

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. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

61.

Erselcan T, Turgut B, Dogan D, Ozdemir S. Lean body mass-based standardized uptake value, derived from a predictive equation, might be misleading in PET studies. Eur J Nucl med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1630–8. doi:10.1007/s00259-002-0974-3.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Chowdhury B, Sjostrom L, Alpsten M, Kostanty J, Kvist H, Lofgren R. A multicompartment body composition technique based on computerized tomography. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders : Journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity. 1994;18:219–34.

63.

Kim WH, Kim CG, Kim DW. Comparison of SUVs normalized by lean body mass determined by CT with those normalized by lean body mass estimated by predictive equations in normal tissues. Nucl med Mol Imaging. 2012;46:182–8. doi:10.1007/s13139-012-0146-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

64.

Makris NE, Boellaard R, Visser EP, de Jong JR, Vanderlinden B, Wierts R, et al. Multicenter harmonization of 89Zr PET/CT performance. J Nucl med. 2014;55:264–7. doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.130112.CrossRefPubMed

65.

FDG-PET/CT Technical Committee. FDG-PET/CT as an imaging biomarker measuring response to cancer therapy, version 1.05, Publicly Reviewed Version. QIBA. 2013. https://www.rsna.org/uploadedFiles/RSNA/Content/Science_and_Education/QIBA/QIBA_FDG-PET_Profile_v105_Publicly_Reviewed_Version_FINAL_11Dec2013.pdf.; 2015.

66.

Boellaard R, Quick HH. Current image acquisition options in PET/MR. Semin Nucl med. 2015;45:192–200. doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2014.12.001.CrossRefPubMed

Title: EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies
Authors: Nicolas Aide
Charline Lasnon
Patrick Veit-Haibach
Terez Sera
Bernhard Sattler
Ronald Boellaard
Publication date: 01-08-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue Special Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3740-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Special Issue 1/2017

Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET

Using PET for therapy monitoring in oncological clinical trials: challenges ahead

Evaluating tumor response with FDG PET: updates on PERCIST, comparison with EORTC criteria and clues to future developments

Therapy assessment in multiple myeloma with PET

The Advantages and Challenges of Using FDG PET/CT for Response Assessment in Melanoma in the Era of Targeted Agents and Immunotherapy

Therapy assessment of bone metastatic disease in the era of 223radium