Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

Open Access 01-08-2017 | Review Article

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

Authors: Charlotte S. van der Vos, Daniëlle Koopman, Sjoerd Rijnsdorp, Albert J. Arends, Ronald Boellaard, Jorn A. van Dalen, Mark Lubberink, Antoon T. M. Willemsen, Eric P. Visser

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

Abstract

In recent years, there have been multiple advances in positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) that improve cancer imaging. The present generation of PET/CT scanners introduces new hardware, software, and acquisition methods. This review describes these new developments, which include time-of-flight (TOF), point-spread-function (PSF), maximum-a-posteriori (MAP) based reconstruction, smaller voxels, respiratory gating, metal artefact reduction, and administration of quadratic weight-dependent ¹⁸F–fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) activity. Also, hardware developments such as continuous bed motion (CBM), (digital) solid-state photodetectors and combined PET and magnetic resonance (MR) systems are explained. These novel techniques have a significant impact on cancer imaging, as they result in better image quality, improved small lesion detectability, and more accurate quantification of radiopharmaceutical uptake. This influences cancer diagnosis and staging, as well as therapy response monitoring and radiotherapy planning. Finally, the possible impact of these developments on the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) guidelines and EANM Research Ltd. (EARL) accreditation for FDG-PET/CT tumor imaging is discussed.

Schoder H, Erdi YE, Larson SM, Yeung HW. PET/CT: a new imaging technology in nuclear medicine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(10):1419–37. doi:10.1007/s00259-003-1299-6.CrossRefPubMed

Townsend DW. Dual-modality imaging: combining anatomy and function. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(6):938–55. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.051276.CrossRefPubMed

Takamochi K, Yoshida J, Murakami K, Niho S, Ishii G, Nishimura M, et al. Pitfalls in lymph node staging with positron emission tomography in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Lung Cancer. 2005;47(2):235–42. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2004.08.004.CrossRefPubMed

Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(6):932–45. doi:10.2967/jnumed.106.035774.CrossRefPubMed

Vandenberghe S, Mikhaylova E, D’Hoe E, Mollet P, Karp JS. Recent developments in time-of-flight PET. EJNMMI Phys. 2016;3(1):3. doi:10.1186/s40658-016-0138-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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(7):907–21. doi:10.1109/TMI.2006.876171.CrossRefPubMed

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;56(9):1447–52. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.159301.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Koopman D, van Dalen JA, Lagerweij MC, Arkies H, de Boer J, Oostdijk AH, et al. Improving the detection of small lesions using a state-of-the-art time-of-flight PET/CT system and small voxel reconstructions. J Nucl Med Technol. 2015;43(1):21–7. doi:10.2967/jnmt.114.147215.CrossRefPubMed

van Elmpt W, Hamill J, Jones J, De Ruysscher D, Lambin P, Ollers M. Optimal gating compared to 3D and 4D PET reconstruction for characterization of lung tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(5):843–55. doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1716-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

van der Vos CS, Arens AIJ, Hamill JJ, Hofman C, Panin VY, Meeuwis AP et al. Metal artifact reduction of CT scans to improve PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2017. doi:10.2967/jnumed.117.191171.

11.

Rausch I, Cal-Gonzalez 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(1):26. doi:10.1186/s40658-015-0132-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Slomka PJ, Pan T, Germano G. Recent advances and future progress in PET instrumentation. Semin Nucl Med. 2016;46(1):5–19. doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2015.09.006.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Wehrl HF, Sauter AW, Divine MR, Pichler BJ. Combined PET/MR: a technology becomes mature. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(2):165–8. doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.150318.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Berker Y, Li Y. Attenuation correction in emission tomography using the emission data-a review. Med Phys. 2016;43(2):807–32. doi:10.1118/1.4938264.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Cherry SR, Badawi RD, Karp JS, Moses WW, Price P, Jones T. Total-body imaging: transforming the role of positron emission tomography. Sci Trans Med. 2017;9(381) doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf6169.

16.

Miller M, Zhang J, Binzel K, Griesmer J, Laurence T, Narayanan M, et al. Characterization of the Vereos digital photon counting PET system. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(supplement 3):434.

17.

Nguyen NC, Vercher-Conejero JL, Sattar A, Miller MA, Maniawski PJ, Jordan DW, et al. Image quality and diagnostic performance of a digital PET prototype in patients with oncologic diseases: initial experience and comparison with analog PET. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(9):1378–85. doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.148338.CrossRefPubMed

18.

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. 2014;59(14):3843–59. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/59/14/3843.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Yoon HJ, Jeong YJ, Son HJ, Kang D-Y, Hyun K-Y, Lee M-K. Optimization of the spatial resolution for the GE discovery PET/CT 710 by using NEMA NU 2-2007 standards. J Korean Phys Soc. 2015;66(2):287–94. doi:10.3938/jkps.66.287.CrossRef

20.

Reynes-Llompart G, Gamez-Cenzano C, Romero-Zayas I, Rodriguez-Bel L, Vercher-Conejero JL, Marti-Climent JM. Performance characteristics of the whole-body discovery IQ PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2017; doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.185561.

21.

Burr KC, Wang GCJ, Du H, Mann G, Balakrishnan K, Wang J et al., editors. A new modular and scalable detector for a time-of-flight PET scanner. New York: IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC); 2012 Oct. 27 2012-Nov. 3 2012.

22.

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(5):2334–43. doi:10.1118/1.4945416.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Karlberg AM, Saether O, Eikenes L, Goa PE. Quantitative comparison of PET performance-Siemens Biograph mCT and mMR. EJNMMI Phys. 2016;3(1):5. doi:10.1186/s40658-016-0142-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

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(12):1914–22. doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.092726.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(6):1147–57. doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1711-y.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Lois C, Jakoby BW, Long MJ, Hubner KF, Barker DW, Casey ME, et al. An assessment of the impact of incorporating time-of-flight information into clinical PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(2):237–45. doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.068098.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Strother SC, Casey ME, Hoffman EJ. Measuring PET scanner sensitivity—relating countrates to image signal-to-noise ratios using noise equivalent counts. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1990;37(2):783–8. doi:10.1109/23.106715.CrossRef

28.

Perkins A, Narayanan M, Zhang B, Scheuermann J, Karp J, Shao L. Influence of a post-reconstruction resolution recovery algorithm on quantitation. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(supplement 2):2128.

29.

Rogasch JM, Steffen IG, Hofheinz F, Grosser OS, Furth C, Mohnike K, et al. The association of tumor-to-background ratios and SUVmax deviations related to point spread function and time-of-flight F18-FDG-PET/CT reconstruction in colorectal liver metastases. EJNMMI Res. 2015;5:31. doi:10.1186/s13550-015-0111-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(11):1716–22. doi:10.2967/jnumed.112.103861.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Bellevre D, Blanc Fournier C, Switsers O, Dugue AE, Levy C, Allouache D, et al. Staging the axilla in breast cancer patients with 18F-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(6):1103–12. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2689-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

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(4):340–8. doi:10.1007/s12149-014-0815-z.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Alessio AM, Rahmim A, Orton CG. Point/counterpoint. Resolution modeling enhances PET imaging. Med Phys. 2013;40(12):120601. doi:10.1118/1.4821088.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Grootjans W, Meeuwis AP, Slump CH, de Geus-Oei LF, Gotthardt M, Visser EP. Performance of 3DOSEM and MAP algorithms for reconstructing low count SPECT acquisitions. Z Med Phys. 2016;26(4):311–22. doi:10.1016/j.zemedi.2015.12.004.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Bradley KM, Belcher E, Black E, Gleeson FV. Novel penalised likelihood reconstruction of PET in the assessment of histologically verified small pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(2):576–84. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3832-y.CrossRefPubMed

36.

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;84(10):1873–8. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.06.025.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Rowley LM, Bradley KM, Boardman P, Hallam A, McGowan DR. Optimization of image reconstruction for 90Y selective internal radiotherapy on a lutetium yttrium orthosilicate PET/CT system using a Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(4):658–64. doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.176552.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(6):1147–57. doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1711-y.CrossRefPubMed

39.

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(2):328–54. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.CrossRefPubMed

40.

NEMA. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA standards publication NU 2–2012. Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. Rosslyn: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2012.

41.

Li C-Y, Klohr S, Sadick H, Weiss C, Hoermann K, Schoenberg SO, et al. Effect of time-of-flight technique on the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT for assessment of lymph node metastases in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med Technol. 2014;42(3):181–7. doi:10.2967/jnmt.114.141192.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Zhang J, Wright C, Binzel K, Siva A, Saif T, Nagar V, et al. High definition (HD) and ultra-high definition (UHD) PET reconstructions improves lesion detectability in digital 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(supplement 2):1980.

43.

Morey AM, Noo F, Kadrmas DJ. Effect of using 2 mm voxels on observer performance for PET lesion detection. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2016;63(3):1359–66. doi:10.1109/TNS.2016.2518177.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Sadick M, Molina F, Frey S, Piniol R, Sadick H, Brade J, et al. Effect of reconstruction parameters in high-definition PET/CT on assessment of lymph node metastases in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med Technol. 2013;41(1):19–25. doi:10.2967/jnmt.112.116806.CrossRefPubMed

45.

van der Vos CS, Grootjans W, Osborne DR, Meeuwis AP, Hamill JJ, Acuff S, et al. Improving the spatial alignment in PET/CT using amplitude-based respiration-gated PET and respiration-triggered CT. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(12):1817–22. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.163055.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Grootjans W, de Geus-Oei LF, Meeuwis AP, van der Vos CS, Gotthardt M, Oyen WJ, et al. Amplitude-based optimal respiratory gating in positron emission tomography in patients with primary lung cancer. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(12):3242–50. doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3362-z.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Nehmeh SA, Erdi YE. Respiratory motion in positron emission tomography/computed tomography: a review. Semin Nucl Med. 2008;38(3):167–76. doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2008.01.002.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Minamimoto R, Mitsumoto T, Miyata Y, Sunaoka F, Morooka M, Okasaki M, et al. Evaluation of a new motion correction algorithm in PET/CT: combining the entire acquired PET data to create a single three-dimensional motion-corrected PET/CT image. Nucl Med Commun. 2016;37(2):162–70. doi:10.1097/MNM.0000000000000423.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Grootjans W, Hermsen R, van der Heijden EH, Schuurbiers-Siebers OC, Visser EP, Oyen WJ, et al. The impact of respiratory gated positron emission tomography on clinical staging and management of patients with lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2015;90(2):217–23. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.09.016.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Callahan J, Kron T, Schneider ME, Hicks RJ. A prospective investigation into the clinical impact of 4D-PET/CT in the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules. Cancer Imaging. 2014;14:24. doi:10.1186/1470-7330-14-24.PubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Wijsman R, Grootjans W, Troost EG, van der Heijden EH, Visser EP, de Geus-Oei LF, et al. Evaluating the use of optimally respiratory gated 18F-FDG-PET in target volume delineation and its influence on radiation doses to the organs at risk in non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Nucl Med Commun. 2016;37(1):66–73. doi:10.1097/MNM.0000000000000409.PubMed

52.

Callahan J, Kron T, Siva S, Simoens N, Edgar A, Everitt S, et al. Geographic miss of lung tumours due to respiratory motion: a comparison of 3D vs 4D PET/CT defined target volumes. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9:291. doi:10.1186/s13014-014-0291-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Guerra L, Meregalli S, Zorz A, Niespolo R, De Ponti E, Elisei F, et al. Comparative evaluation of CT-based and respiratory-gated PET/CT-based planning target volume (PTV) in the definition of radiation treatment planning in lung cancer: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(4):702–10. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2594-5.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Chirindel A, Adebahr S, Schuster D, Schimek-Jasch T, Schanne DH, Nemer U, et al. Impact of 4D-18FDG-PET/CT imaging on target volume delineation in SBRT patients with central versus peripheral lung tumors. Multi-reader comparative study. Radiother Oncol. 2015;115(3):335–41. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2015.05.019.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Gjesteby L, De Man B, Jin YN, Paganetti H, Verburg J, Giantsoudi D, et al. Metal artifact reduction in CT: where are we after four decades? IEEE Access. 2016;4:5826–49. doi:10.1109/Access.2016.2608621.CrossRef

56.

Kamel EM, Burger C, Buck A, von Schulthess GK, Goerres GW. Impact of metallic dental implants on CT-based attenuation correction in a combined PET/CT scanner. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(4):724–8. doi:10.1007/s00330-002-1564-2.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Shimamoto H, Kakimoto N, Fujino K, Hamada S, Shimosegawa E, Murakami S, et al. Metallic artifacts caused by dental metal prostheses on PET images: a PET/CT phantom study using different PET/CT scanners. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23(5):443–9. doi:10.1007/s12149-009-0254-4.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Awan MJ, Siddiqui F, Schwartz D, Yuan J, Machtay M, Yao M. Application of positron emission tomography/computed tomography in radiation treatment planning for head and neck cancers. World J Radiol. 2015;7(11):382–93. doi:10.4329/wjr.v7.i11.382.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Abdoli M, Dierckx RA, Zaidi H. Metal artifact reduction strategies for improved attenuation correction in hybrid PET/CT imaging. Med Phys. 2012;39(6):3343–60. doi:10.1118/1.4709599.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Cherry SR, Sorenson JA, Phelps ME. Physics in nuclear medicine. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2012.

61.

Schatka I, Weiberg D, Reichelt S, Owsianski-Hille N, Derlin T, Berding G, et al. A randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of novel continuous bed motion versus traditional bed position whole-body PET/CT imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(4):711–7. doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3226-z.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Acuff SN, Osborne D. Clinical workflow considerations for implementation of continuous-bed-motion PET/CT. J Nucl Med Technol. 2016;44(2):55–8. doi:10.2967/jnmt.116.172171.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Frach T, Prescher G, Degenhardt C, de Gruyter R, Schmitz A, Ballizany R, editors. The digital silicon photomultiplier—principle of operation and intrinsic detector performance. New York: Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC): IEEE; 2009.

64.

Degenhardt C, Prescher G, Frach T, Thon A, de Gruyter R, Schmitz A, et al., editors. The digital silicon photomultiplier—a novel sensor for the detection of scintillation light. New York: Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC): IEEE; 2009.

65.

Degenhardt C, Rodrigues P, Trindade A, Zwaans B, Mülhens O, Dorscheid R, et al., editors. Performance evaluation of a prototype positron emission tomography scanner using digital photon counters (DPC). New York: Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC): IEEE; 2012.

66.

Narayanan M, Andreyev A, Bai C, Miller M, Hu Z. TOF-benefits on the Philips digital PET/CT scanner: evaluation of faster convergence and reduced scan times. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(supplement 2):201.

67.

Zhang J, Binzel K, Bardos P, Nagar V, Knopp M, Zhang B, et al. FDG dose reduction potential of a next generation digital detector PET/CT system: initial clinical demonstration in whole-body imaging. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(supplement 3):1823.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

69.

Hofmann M, Pichler B, Scholkopf B, Beyer T. Towards quantitative PET/MRI: a review of MR-based attenuation correction techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36(supplement 1):S93–104. doi:10.1007/s00259-008-1007-7.CrossRefPubMed

70.

Mehranian A, Zaidi H. Emission-based estimation of lung attenuation coefficients for attenuation correction in time-of-flight PET/MR. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(12):4813–33. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/60/12/4813.CrossRefPubMed

71.

Benoit D, Ladefoged CN, Rezaei A, Keller SH, Andersen FL, Hojgaard L, et al. Optimized MLAA for quantitative non-TOF PET/MR of the brain. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(24):8854–74. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/61/24/8854.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Cheng JC, Salomon A, Yaqub M, Boellaard R. Investigation of practical initial attenuation image estimates in TOF-MLAA reconstruction for PET/MR. Med Phys. 2016;43(7):4163–73. doi:10.1118/1.4953634.CrossRefPubMed

73.

Boellaard R, Quick HH. Current image acquisition options in PET/MR. Semin Nucl Med. 2015;45(3):192–200. doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2014.12.001.CrossRefPubMed

74.

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. 2017;31(2):125–34. doi:10.1007/s12149-016-1135-2.CrossRefPubMed

75.

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;42(13):2072–82. doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

76.

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(7):985–96. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2391-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

77.

Aide N, Lasnon C, Veit Haibach P, Sera T, Sattler B, Boellaard R. EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017. doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3740-2.

78.

de Groot EH, Post N, Boellaard R, Wagenaar NR, Willemsen AT, van Dalen JA. Optimized dose regimen for whole-body FDG-PET imaging. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3(1):63. doi:10.1186/2191-219X-3-63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

79.

Koopman D, van Osch JA, Jager PL, Tenbergen CJ, Knollema S, Slump CH, et al. Technical note: how to determine the FDG activity for tumour PET imaging that satisfies European guidelines. EJNMMI Phys. 2016;3(1):22. doi:10.1186/s40658-016-0158-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

80.

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(1):181–200. doi:10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4.CrossRefPubMed

81.

Selwyn RG, Nickles RJ, Thomadsen BR, DeWerd LA, Micka JA. A new internal pair production branching ratio of 90Y: the development of a non-destructive assay for 90Y and 90Sr. Appl Radiat Isot. 2007;65(3):318–27. doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2006.08.009.CrossRefPubMed

82.

Zade AA, Rangarajan V, Purandare NC, Shah SA, Agrawal AR, Kulkarni SS, et al. 90Y microsphere therapy: does 90Y PET/CT imaging obviate the need for 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT imaging? Nucl Med Commun. 2013;34(11):1090–6. doi:10.1097/MNM.0b013e328364aa4b.CrossRefPubMed

83.

Pasciak AS, Bourgeois AC, Bradley YC. A comparison of techniques for 90Y PET/CT image-based dosimetry following radioembolization with resin microspheres. Front Oncol. 2014;4:121. doi:10.3389/fonc.2014.00121.PubMedPubMedCentral

84.

Willowson KP, Tapner M, Team QI, Bailey DL. A multicentre comparison of quantitative 90Y PET/CT for dosimetric purposes after radioembolization with resin microspheres: the QUEST phantom study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(8):1202–22. doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3059-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

85.

Braat AJ, Smits ML, Braat MN, van den Hoven AF, Prince JF, de Jong HW, et al. 90Y hepatic radioembolization: an update on current practice and recent developments. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(7):1079–87. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.157446.CrossRefPubMed

86.

Wright C, Binzel K, Zhang J, Wuthrick E, Tung C-H, Knopp M. Post-radioembolization assessment of intrahepatic yttrium-90 microsphere biodistribution using next-generation digital PET/CT and comparison to current pre/post-radioembolization SPECT/CT methodologies. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(supplement 2):197.

87.

Preylowski V, Schlogl S, Schoenahl F, Jorg G, Samnick S, Buck AK, et al. Is the image quality of I-124-PET impaired by an automatic correction of prompt gammas? PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e71729. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071729.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

88.

Lubberink M, Herzog H. Quantitative imaging of 124I and 86Y with PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(supplement 1):S10–8. doi:10.1007/s00259-011-1768-2.CrossRefPubMed

89.

Surti S, Scheuermann R, Karp JS. Correction technique for cascade gammas in I-124 imaging on a fully-3D, time-of-flight PET scanner. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2009;56(3):653–60. doi:10.1109/TNS.2008.2011805.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

90.

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(2):264–7. doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.130112.

91.

Conti M, Eriksson L. Physics of pure and non-pure positron emitters for PET: a review and a discussion. EJNMMI Phys. 2016;3(1):8. doi:10.1186/s40658-016-0144-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET
Authors: Charlotte S. van der Vos
Daniëlle Koopman
Sjoerd Rijnsdorp
Albert J. Arends
Ronald Boellaard
Jorn A. van Dalen
Mark Lubberink
Antoon T. M. Willemsen
Eric P. Visser
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/s00259-017-3727-z

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Special Issue 1/2017

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

Molecularly targeted therapies in cancer: a guide for the nuclear medicine physician

FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas

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

Therapy monitoring with PET in cancer patients: achievements, opportunities and challenges ahead for the PET community

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