Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

Open Access 01-07-2018 | Original Article

Feasibility of state of the art PET/CT systems performance harmonisation

Authors: Andres Kaalep, Terez Sera, Sjoerd Rijnsdorp, Maqsood Yaqub, Anne Talsma, Martin A. Lodge, Ronald Boellaard

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 8/2018

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this study was to explore the feasibility of harmonising performance for PET/CT systems equipped with time-of-flight (ToF) and resolution modelling/point spread function (PSF) technologies. A second aim was producing a working prototype of new harmonising criteria with higher contrast recoveries than current EARL standards using various SUV metrics.

Methods

Four PET/CT systems with both ToF and PSF capabilities from three major vendors were used to acquire and reconstruct images of the NEMA NU2–2007 body phantom filled conforming EANM EARL guidelines. A total of 15 reconstruction parameter sets of varying pixel size, post filtering and reconstruction type, with three different acquisition durations were used to compare the quantitative performance of the systems. A target range for recovery curves was established such that it would accommodate the highest matching recoveries from all investigated systems. These updated criteria were validated on 18 additional scanners from 16 sites in order to demonstrate the scanners’ ability to meet the new target range.

Results

Each of the four systems was found to be capable of producing harmonising reconstructions with similar recovery curves. The five reconstruction parameter sets producing harmonising results significantly increased SUVmean (25%) and SUVmax (26%) contrast recoveries compared with current EARL specifications. Additional prospective validation performed on 18 scanners from 16 EARL accredited sites demonstrated the feasibility of updated harmonising specifications. SUVpeak was found to significantly reduce the variability in quantitative results while producing lower recoveries in smaller (≤17 mm diameter) sphere sizes.

Conclusions

Harmonising PET/CT systems with ToF and PSF technologies from different vendors was found to be feasible. The harmonisation of such systems would require an update to the current multicentre accreditation program EARL in order to accommodate higher recoveries. SUVpeak should be further investigated as a noise resistant alternative quantitative metric to SUVmax.

Available only for authorised users

Avril NE, Weber WA. Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET. Radiol Clin N Am. 2005;43:189–204.CrossRefPubMed

Bastiaannet E, Groen B, Jager PL, Cobben DCP, van der Graaf WTA, Vaalburg W, et al. The value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading and response to therapy of soft tissue and bone sarcomas; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev. 2004;30:83–101.CrossRefPubMed

Erdi YE. The use of PET for radiotherapy. Curr Med Imaging Rev. 2007;3:3–16.

Fletcher JW. Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel B a, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:480–508.CrossRefPubMed

de Geus-Oei L-F, van der Heijden HFM, Corstens FHM, Oyen WJG. Predictive and prognostic value of FDG-PET in nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Cancer [internet]. Wiley subscription services, Inc. A Wiley Company. 2007;110:1654–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22979.CrossRef

Hoekstra CJ, Stroobants SG, Smit EF, Vansteenkiste J, van Tinteren H, Postmus PE, et al. Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8362–70.CrossRefPubMed

Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, Mottaghy FM, Dietlein M, Guermazi A, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the imaging subcommittee of international harmonization project in lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:571–8.CrossRefPubMed

Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG. The role of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in respiratory oncology. Eur Respir J. 2001;17:802–20.CrossRefPubMed

Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J. Nucl. Med. [Internet]. 2005;46:983–95. Available from: http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/46/6/983.abstract PubMed

10.

Borst GR, Belderbos JS, Boellaard R, EFI C, De Jaeger K, Lammertsma AA, et al. Standardised FDG uptake: a prognostic factor for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:1533–41.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, Graham MM, Karp J, Lammertsma AA, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1059–66.PubMed

12.

Gupta T, Master Z, Kannan S, Agarwal JP, Ghsoh-Laskar S, Rangarajan V, et al. Diagnostic performance of post-treatment FDG PET or FDG PET/CT imaging in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:2083.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Ung YC, Maziak DE, Vanderveen JA, Smith CA, Gulenchyn K, Lacchetti C, et al. 18Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1753–67.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lv Y-L, Yuan D-M, Wang K, Miao X-H, Qian Q, Wei S-Z, et al. Diagnostic performance of integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography for mediastinal lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer: a bivariate systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Oncol International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. 2011;6:1350–8.CrossRef

15.

Eschmann SM, Friedel G, Paulsen F, Reimold M, Hehr T, Budach W, et al. 18F-FDG PET for assessment of therapy response and preoperative re-evaluation after neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:463–71.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Hicks RJ, Kalff V, Macmanus MP, Ware RE, Mckenzie AF, Matthews JP, et al. The utility of F-FDG PET for suspected recurrent non – small cell lung cancer after potentially curative therapy: impact on management and prognostic stratification. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:10–21.

17.

Dijkman BG, Schuurbiers OCJ, Vriens D, Looijen-Salamon M, Bussink J, Timmer-Bonte JNH, et al. The role of (18)F-FDG PET in the differentiation between lung metastases and synchronous second primary lung tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. 2010;37:2037–47.CrossRef

18.

Hellwig D, Graeter TP, Ukena D, Groeschel A, Sybrecht GW, Schaefers HJ, et al. 18F-FDG PET for mediastinal staging of lung cancer: which SUV threshold makes sense? J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1761–6.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Agarwal M, Brahmanday G, Bajaj SK, Ravikrishnan KP, Wong C-YO. Revisiting the prognostic value of preoperative (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose ( (18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in early-stage (I & II) non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:691–8.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Liao S, Penney BC, Wroblewski K, Zhang H, Simon CA, Kampalath R, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden on 18F-FDG PET in nonsurgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:27–38.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, Gascoyne RD, Specht L, Horning SJ, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579–86.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Hicks RJ. Role of 18F-FDG PET in assessment of response in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:31S–42.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Czernin J, Weber WA, Herschman HR. Molecular imaging in the development of cancer therapeutics. Annu Rev Med United States. 2006;57:99–118.CrossRef

24.

Frank R, Hargreaves R. Clinical biomarkers in drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov England. 2003;2:566–80.CrossRef

25.

Weber WA. Assessing tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1S–0.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B, Tyndale-Hines L, Link T, Peschel C, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol United States. 2003;21:2651–7.CrossRef

27.

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

28.

Boellaard R. Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med [Internet]. 2011;52(Suppl 2):93S–100S. Available from: http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/52/Supplement_2/93S.full CrossRef

29.

Doot RK, Pierce LA, Byrd D, Elston B, Allberg KC, Kinahan PE. Biases in multicenter longitudinal PET standardized uptake value measurements. Transl Oncol [Internet]. 2014;7:48–54. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3998681&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract CrossRef

30.

Feuardent J, Soret M, De Dreuille O, Foehrenbach H, Buvat I. Reliability of uptake estimates in FDG PET as a function of acquisition and processing protocols using the CPET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2005;52:1447–52.CrossRef

31.

Kurland BF, Gerstner ER, Mountz JM, Schwartz LH, Ryan CW, Graham MM, et al. Promise and pitfalls of quantitative imaging in oncology clinical trials. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30:1301–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Lammertsma AA, Hoekstra CJ, Giaccone G, Hoekstra OS. How should we analyse FDG PET studies for monitoring tumour response? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33

33.

Vriens D, Visser EP, De Geus-Oei LF, WJG O. Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1408–25.CrossRefPubMed

34.

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

35.

Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJG, 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;42:328–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, Brown ML, Royal HD. Siegel B a, et al. procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:885–95.PubMed

37.

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Scheuermann JS, Saffer JR, Karp JS, Levering AM, Siegel A. Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: the American College of Radiology Imaging Network experience. J Nucl Med. 2010;50:1187–93.CrossRef

39.

Kinahan P, Wahl R, Shao L, Frank R, Perlman E. The QIBA profile for quantitative FDG-PET/CT oncology imaging. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1520.

40.

Boellaard R, Willemsen a T, Arends B, Visser EP. EARL procedure for assessing PET/CT system specific patient FDG activity preparations for quantitative FDG PET/CT studies. 2013; p. 1–3.

41.

Weber WA. PET for response assessment in oncology: radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Br J Radiol. 2005;78:42–9.CrossRef

42.

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. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773–82.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Huang H. Anatomy of SUV. Nucl Med Biol [Internet]. 2000;27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-8051(00)00155-4.

44.

Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1431–4.PubMed

45.

Krak NC, Boellaard R, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JWR, Hoekstra CJ, Lammertsma AA. Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:294–301.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Sera T. Experiences and Results of the PET/CT Accreditation Program: The 150 Sites Milestone. EANM Comm. Symp. 2016.

47.

Rausch I, Cal-González J, Dapra D, Gallowitsch HJ, Lind P, Beyer T, et al. Performance evaluation of the biograph mCT flow PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard. EJNMMI Phys. 2015;2:26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Karlberg AM, Sæther O, Eikenes L, Goa PE. Quantitative comparison of PET performance-Siemens Biograph mCT and mMR. EJNMMI Phys. [Internet]. 2016;3:5. Available from: http://ejnmmiphys.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40658-016-0142-7

49.

Kolthammer JA, Su K-H, Grover A, Narayanan M, Jordan DW, Muzic RF. Performance evaluation of the ingenuity TF PET/CT scanner with a focus on high count-rate conditions. Phys Med Biol [Internet]. 2014;59:3843–59. Available from: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/59/14/3843 CrossRef

50.

GE Healthcare Discovery PET/CT 710 system manufacturer webpage [Internet]. Available from: http://www3.gehealthcare.com/en/products/categories/pet-ct/pet-ct_scanners/discovery_pet-ct_710

51.

Philips USA website [Internet]. Available from: https://www.usa.philips.com/healthcare/product/HC882456/ingenuity-tf-pet-ct-scanner

52.

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

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

54.

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Kramer GM, Frings V, Hoetjes N, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, de Langen AJ, et al. Repeatability of quantitative whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT uptake measures as function of uptake interval and lesion selection in non-small cell lung cancer patients. J Nucl Med [Internet]. 2016;57:1343–9. Available from: http://jnm.snmjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.2967/jnumed.115.170225 CrossRef

56.

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

57.

Frings V, van Velden FHP, Velasquez LM, Hayes W, van de Ven PM, Hoekstra OS, et al. Repeatability of metabolically active tumor volume measurements with FDG PET/CT in advanced gastrointestinal malignancies: a multicenter study. Radiology [Internet] Radiological Society of North America. 2014;273:539–48. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14132807.CrossRef

58.

van Velden FHP, Kramer GM, Frings V, Nissen IA, Mulder ER, de Langen AJ, et al. Repeatability of Radiomic features in non-small-cell lung cancer [18F]FDG-PET/CT studies: impact of reconstruction and delineation. Mol. Imaging biol. [internet]. Mol Imaging Biol. 2016;18:788–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-016-0940-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Feasibility of state of the art PET/CT systems performance harmonisation
Authors: Andres Kaalep
Terez Sera
Sjoerd Rijnsdorp
Maqsood Yaqub
Anne Talsma
Martin A. Lodge
Ronald Boellaard
Publication date: 01-07-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 8/2018
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-3977-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Feasibility of state of the art PET/CT systems performance harmonisation

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2018

The role of interim 18F-FDG PET/CT in prediction of response to ipilimumab treatment in metastatic melanoma

Is there an optimal method for measuring baseline metabolic tumor volume in diffuse large B cell lymphoma?

18F-FDG PET in drug-resistant epilepsy due to focal cortical dysplasia type 2: additional value of electroclinical data and coregistration with MRI

TSPO PET with [18F]GE-180 sensitively detects focal neuroinflammation in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis

Clinical utility of simultaneous whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI as a single-step imaging modality in the staging of primary nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Correction to: 18F-FDG PET in drug-resistant epilepsy due to focal cortical dysplasia type 2: additional value of electroclinical data and coregistration with MRI