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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 3/2018

Open Access 01-03-2018 | Original Article

EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation - summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems

Authors: Andres Kaalep, Terez Sera, Wim Oyen, Bernd J. Krause, Arturo Chiti, Yan Liu, Ronald Boellaard

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

From 2010 until July 2016, the EANM Research Ltd. (EARL) FDG-PET/CT accreditation program has collected over 2500 phantom datasets from approximately 200 systems and 150 imaging sites worldwide. The objective of this study is to report the findings and impact of the accreditation program on the participating PET/CT systems.

Methods

To obtain and maintain EARL accredited status, sites were required to complete and submit two phantom scans - calibration quality control (CalQC), using a uniform cylindrical phantom and image quality control (IQQC), using a NEMA NU2–2007 body phantom. Average volumetric SUV bias and SUV recovery coefficients (RC) were calculated and the data evaluated on the basis of quality control (QC) type, approval status, PET/CT system manufacturer and submission order.

Results

SUV bias in 5% (n = 96) of all CalQC submissions (n = 1816) exceeded 10%. After corrective actions following EARL feedback, sites achieved 100% compliance within EARL specifications. 30% (n = 1381) of SUVmean and 23% (n = 1095) of SUVmax sphere recoveries from IQQC submissions failed to meet EARL accreditation criteria while after accreditation, failure rate decreased to 12% (n = 360) and 9% (n = 254), respectively. Most systems demonstrated longitudinal SUV bias reproducibility within ±5%, while RC values remained stable and generally within ±10% for the four largest and ±20% for the two smallest spheres.

Conclusions

Regardless of manufacturer or model, all investigated systems are able to comply with the EARL specifications. Within the EARL accreditation program, gross PET/CT calibration errors are successfully identified and longitudinal variability in PET/CT performances reduced. The program demonstrates that a harmonising accreditation procedure is feasible and achievable.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:480–508.CrossRefPubMed
2.
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: a systematic review. Cancer. 2007;110:1654–64.CrossRefPubMed
3.
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
4.
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
5.
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
6.
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.
7.
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
8.
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.
9.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
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
11.
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
12.
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
13.
Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:983–95.PubMed
14.
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
15.
Czernin J, Weber WA, Herschman HR. Molecular imaging in the development of cancer therapeutics. Annu Rev Med United States. 2006;57:99–118.CrossRef
16.
Frank R, Hargreaves R. Clinical biomarkers in drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov England. 2003;2:566–80.CrossRef
17.
18.
Bengtsson T, Hicks RJ, Peterson A, Port RE. 18F-FDG PET as a surrogate biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib: newly identified lesions are more informative than standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:530–7.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Huang W, Zhou T, Ma L, Sun H, Gong H, Wang J, et al. Standard uptake value and metabolic tumor volume of 18F-FDG PET/CT predict short-term outcome early in the course of chemoradiotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1628.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1431–4.PubMed
21.
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
22.
23.
Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol United States. 2010;195:310–20.CrossRef
24.
Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):11S–20S.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Kinahan PE, Fletcher JW. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy. Semin Ultrasound CT MR United States. 2010;31:496–505.CrossRef
26.
Fahey FH, Kinahan PE, Doot RK, Kocak M, Thurston H, Poussaint TY. Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium. Med Phys United States. 2010;37:3660–6.
27.
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 United States. 2011;52:303–10.CrossRef
28.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Hristova I, Boellaard R, Vogel W, Mottaghy F, Marreaud S, Collette S, et al. Retrospective quality control review of FDG scans in the imaging sub-study of PALETTE EORTC 62072/VEG110727: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:848–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
31.
Buckler AJ, Boellaard R. Standardization of quantitative imaging: the time is right, and 18F-FDG PET/CT is a good place to start. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:171–2.CrossRefPubMed
32.
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
33.
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
34.
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
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 BA, 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.
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
39.
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
40.
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.
41.
42.
43.
Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Wit M, Ivancevic V, Bares R, Munz DL. Multicenter comparison of calibration and cross calibration of PET scanners. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:635–9.PubMed
Metadata
Title
EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation - summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems
Authors
Andres Kaalep
Terez Sera
Wim Oyen
Bernd J. Krause
Arturo Chiti
Yan Liu
Ronald Boellaard
Publication date
01-03-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3853-7

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 3/2018 Go to the issue

Original Article

Prospective evaluation of 18F-FACBC PET/CT and PET/MRI versus multiparametric MRI in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer patients (FLUCIPRO trial)

Original Article

Simultaneous whole-body 18F–PSMA-1007-PET/MRI with integrated high-resolution multiparametric imaging of the prostatic fossa for comprehensive oncological staging of patients with prostate cancer: a pilot study

Image of the Month

Incidental identification of osteoid osteoma by 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT

Review Article

Third-line treatment and 177Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review

Original Article

FDG PET/CT radiomics for predicting the outcome of locally advanced rectal cancer

Original Article

Head to head comparison of [18F] AV-1451 and [18F] THK5351 for tau imaging in Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia