Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2008 | Special Contribution

The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials

Authors: Ronald Boellaard, Wim J. G. Oyen, Corneline J. Hoekstra, Otto S. Hoekstra, Eric P. Visser, Antoon T. Willemsen, Bertjan Arends, Fred J. Verzijlbergen, Josee Zijlstra, Anne M. Paans, Emile F. I. Comans, Jan Pruim

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 12/2008

Abstract

Introduction

Several studies have shown the usefulness of positron emission tomography (PET) quantification using standardised uptake values (SUV) for diagnosis and staging, prognosis and response monitoring. Many factors affect SUV, such as patient preparation procedures, scan acquisition, image reconstruction and data analysis settings, and the variability in methodology across centres prohibits exchange of SUV data. Therefore, standardisation of 2-[¹⁸F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET whole body procedures is required in multi-centre trials.

Methods

A protocol for standardisation of quantitative FDG whole body PET studies in the Netherlands (NL) was defined. This protocol is based on standardisation of: (1) patient preparation; (2) matching of scan statistics by prescribing dosage as function of patient weight, scan time per bed position, percentage of bed overlap and image acquisition mode (2D or 3D); (3) matching of image resolution by prescribing reconstruction settings for each type of scanner; (4) matching of data analysis procedure by defining volume of interest methods and SUV calculations and; (5) finally, a multi-centre QC procedure is defined using a 20-cm diameter phantom for verification of scanner calibration and the NEMA NU 2 2001 Image Quality phantom for verification of activity concentration recoveries (i.e., verification of image resolution and reconstruction convergence).

Discussion

This paper describes a protocol for standardization of quantitative FDG whole body multi-centre PET studies.

Conclusion

The protocol was successfully implemented in the Netherlands and has been approved by the Netherlands Society of Nuclear Medicine.

Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations on the use of F-18-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(3):480–508.PubMedCrossRef

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(4):802–20.PubMedCrossRef

Geus-Oei LF, van der Heijden HF, Corstens FH, Oyen WJ. Predictive and prognostic value of FDG-PET in nonsmall-cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Cancer 2007;110(8):1654–64.PubMedCrossRef

Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(6):983–95.PubMed

Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W, Bense S, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(20):3495–502.PubMed

Bastiaannet E, Groen H, 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(1):83–101.PubMedCrossRef

Borst G, Belderbos J, Boellaard R, Comans E, de Jaeger K, Lammertsma A, et al. Prognostic significance of the 18FDG-PET standardized uptake value for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer patients after high-dose radiotherapy. Lung Cancer 2005;49:S50.CrossRef

Herder GJM, Kramer H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, Pruim J, van Tinteren H, et al. Traditional versus up-front [F-18] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: a Dutch cooperative randomized study. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(12):1800–6.PubMedCrossRef

Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(9):1431–4.PubMed

10.

Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(9):1519–27.PubMed

11.

Weber WA. Positron emission tomography as an imaging biomarker. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(20):3282–92.PubMedCrossRef

12.

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(3):392–404.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Freudenberg LS, Rosenbaum-Krumme SJ, Bockisch A, Eberhardt W, Frilling A. Cancer of unknown primary. Recent Results Cancer Res 2008;170:193–202.PubMed

14.

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

15.

Jaskowiak CJ, Bianco JA, Perlman SB, Fine JP. Influence of reconstruction iterations on F-18-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(3):424–8.PubMed

16.

Stahl A, Ott K, Schwaiger M, Weber WA. Comparison of different SUV-based methods for monitoring cytotoxic therapy with FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31(11):1471–9.PubMedCrossRef

17.

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(3):294–301.PubMedCrossRef

18.

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(13):1773–82.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, Graham MM, Karp J, Lammertsma AA, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of F-18-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in national cancer institute trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(6):1059–66.PubMed

20.

Larson SM, Schwartz LH. 18F-FDG PET as a candidate for “qualified biomarker”: functional assessment of treatment response in oncology. J Nucl Med 2006;47(6):901–03.PubMed

21.

Zijlstra JM, Comans EF, van Lingen A, Hoekstra OS, Gundy CM, Coebergh JW, et al. FDG PET in lymphoma: The need for standardization of interpretation. An observer variation study. Nucl Med Common. 2007;28(10):798–803.CrossRef

22.

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(5):571–8.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Coleman RE, Delbeke D, Guiberteau MJ, Conti PS, Royal HD, Weinreb JC, et al. Concurrent PET/CT with an integrated imaging system: intersociety dialogue from the joint working group of the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine, and the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(7):1225–39.PubMed

24.

Delbeke. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with F-18-FDG PET/CT 1.0 (vol 47, pg 885, 2006). J Nucl Med. 2006;47(6):903.

25.

Watson CC. New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 3D PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2000;47(4):1587–94.CrossRef

26.

Erdi YE, Mawlawi O, Larson SM, Imbriaco M, Yeung H, Finn R, et al. Segmentation of lung lesion volume by adaptive positron emission tomography image thresholding. Cancer 1997;80(12 Suppl):2505–9.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Bradley J, Thorstad WL, Mutic S, Miller TR, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, et al. Impact of FDG-PET on radiation therapy volume delineation in non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;59(1):78–86.PubMed

28.

Giraud P, Grahek D, Montravers F, Carette MF, Deniaud-Alexandre E, Julia F, et al. CT and (18)F-deoxyglucose (FDG) image fusion for optimization of conformal radiotherapy of lung cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;49(5):1249–57.PubMed

29.

Nestle U, Kremp S, Schaefer-Schuler A, Sebastian-Welsch C, Hellwig D, Rube C, et al. Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2005;46(8):1342–8.PubMed

30.

Black QC, Grills IS, Kestin LL, Wong CYO, Wong JW, Martinez AA, et al. Defining a radiotherapy target with positron emission tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60(4):1272–82.PubMed

31.

van Dalen JA, Hoffmann AL, Dicken V, Vogel WV, Wiering B, Ruers TJ, et al. A novel iterative method for lesion delineation and volumetric quantification with FDG PET. Nucl Med Commun 2007;28(6):485–93.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Greuter HN, Boellaard R, van Lingen A, Franssen EJ, Lammertsma AA. Measurement of 18F-FDG concentrations in blood samples: comparison of direct calibration and standard solution methods. J Nucl Med Technol. 2003;31(4):206–9.PubMed

33.

An YS, Sheen SS, Oh YJ, Hwang SC, Yoon JK. Nonionic intravenous contrast agent does not cause clinically significant artifacts to F-18-FDG PET/CT in patients with lung cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2007;21(10):585–92.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Stattaus J, Jentzen W, Mueller SP, Debatin JF, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography-CT: optimized CT using oral and IV contrast materials. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(6):1555–60.PubMed

35.

Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Egelhof T, Stattaus J, Jentzen W, Debatin JF, et al. Focal tracer uptake: a potential artifact in contrast-enhanced dual-modality PET/CT scans. J Nucl Med. 2002;43(10):1339–42.PubMed

36.

Berthelsen AK, Holm S, Loft A, Klausen TL, Andersen F, Hojgaard L. PET/CT with intravenous contrast can be used for PET attenuation correction in cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32(10):1167–75.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Vera P, Ouvrier MJ, Hapdey S, Thillays M, Pesquet AS, Diologent B, et al. Does chemotherapy influence the quantification of SUV when contrast-enhanced CT is used in PET/CT in lymphoma? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34(12):1943–52.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Visvikis D, Costa DC, Croasdale I, Lonn AH, Bomanji J, Gacinovic S, et al. CT-based attenuation correction in the calculation of semi-quantitative indices of [18F]FDG uptake in PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30(3):344–53.PubMed

39.

Yau YY, Chan WS, Tam YM, Vernon P, Wong S, Coel M, et al. Application of intravenous contrast in PET/CT: Does it really introduce significant attenuation correction error? J Nucl Med. 2005;46(2):283–91.PubMed

40.

Beyer T, Antoch G, Bockisch A, Stattaus J. Optimized intravenous contrast administration for diagnostic whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2005;46(3):429–35.PubMed

41.

Ahmadian A, Ay MR, Bidgoli JH, Sarkar S, Zaidi H. Correction of oral contrast artifacts in CT-based attenuation correction of PET images using an automated segmentation algorithm. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;5:3542–7.

42.

Antoch G, Jentzen W, Freudenberg LS, Stattaus J, Mueller SP, Debatin JF, et al. Effect of oral contrast agents on computed tomography-based positron emission tomography attenuation correction in dual-modality positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Invest Radiol 2003;38(12):784–9.PubMed

43.

Cohade C, Osman M, Nakamoto Y, Marshall LT, Links JM, Fishman EK, et al. Initial experience with oral contrast in PET/CT: phantom and clinical studies. J Nucl Med 2003;44(3):412–6.PubMed

44.

Dizendorf E, Hany TF, Buck A, von Schulthess GK, Burger C. Cause and magnitude of the error induced by oral CT contrast agent in CT-based attenuation correction of PET emission studies. J Nucl Med 2003;44(5):732–38.PubMed

45.

Groves AM, Kayani I, Dickson JC, Townsend C, Croasdale I, Syed R, et al. Oral contrast medium in PET/CT: should you or shouldn’t you? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32(10):1160–6.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Dizendorf EV, Treyer V, von Schulthess GK, Hany TF. Application of oral contrast media in coregistered positron emission tomography-CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(2):477–81.PubMed

47.

Antoch G, Kuehl H, Kanja J, Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H, Hauth E, et al. Dual-modality PET/CT scanning with negative oral contrast agent to avoid artifacts: introduction and evaluation. Radiology 2004;230(3):879–85.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Hausegger K, Reinprecht P, Kau T, Igerc I, Lind P. Clinical experience with a commercially available negative oral contrast medium in PET/CT. Rofo 2005;177(6):796–9.PubMed

Title: The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials
Authors: Ronald Boellaard
Wim J. G. Oyen
Corneline J. Hoekstra
Otto S. Hoekstra
Eric P. Visser
Antoon T. Willemsen
Bertjan Arends
Fred J. Verzijlbergen
Josee Zijlstra
Anne M. Paans
Emile F. I. Comans
Jan Pruim
Publication date: 01-12-2008
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 12/2008
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-008-0874-2

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2008

Cyclosporine, a P-glycoprotein modulator, increases [18F]MPPF uptake in rat brain and peripheral tissues: microPET and ex vivo studies

SPECT and MRI fusion for an extended bilateral osteoneocrosis

Clinical correlation of the binding potential with 123I-FP-CIT in de novo idiopathic Parkinson’s disease patients

Evaluation of CLINDE as potent translocator protein (18 kDa) SPECT radiotracer reflecting the degree of neuroinflammation in a rat model of microglial activation

Dynamic 18F-fluoride small animal PET to noninvasively assess renal function in rats

Regional analysis of FDG and PIB-PET images in normal aging, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer’s disease