Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

01-06-2021 | Lung Cancer | Original Article

Total-body PET/CT using half-dose FDG and compared with conventional PET/CT using full-dose FDG in lung cancer

Authors: Hui Tan, Xiuli Sui, Hongyan Yin, Haojun Yu, Yusen Gu, Shuguang Chen, Pengcheng Hu, Wujian Mao, Hongcheng Shi

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 6/2021

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose was to explore the effects of total-body PET/CT with half-dose ¹⁸F-FDG activity on image quality, compared with those of conventional PET/CT with clinical routine full-dose ¹⁸F-FDG in lung cancer.

Methods

Fifty-six primary lung cancer patients who underwent total-body PET/CT on a uEXPLORER scanner with half-dose (1.85 MBq/kg) ¹⁸F-FDG activity before treatment were retrospectively studied; among them, 28 patients were confirmed by postoperative pathologic examination and 28 patients by biopsy. After matching with the pathological study results, the other 28 patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery were selected for the full-dose (3.70 MBq/kg) group. Patients in the full-dose group were studied with a conventional uM780 PET/CT scanner. The acquisition time of the half-dose group was 15 min, split into 4-min and 2-min duration groups, which were all referred to as G15, G4 and G2, respectively. The PET/CT scanning speed in the full-dose group was 2 min/bed. Image quality was evaluated by subjective and objective analyses. The subjective analysis method was carried out with a 5-point scale (5-excellent, 1-poor). Objective analysis indicators of PET image quality included the SUVmax, SUVmean and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the liver; the SUVmax and SUVmean of the blood pool; and the SUVmax and tumour-to-background ratio (TBR) of the lesions. G15 served as the reference for G2 and G4 to test lesion detectability.

Results

Image quality scores in G2 (4.3 ± 0.7) were significantly higher than those in the full-dose group (3.7 ± 0.6) (p = 0.004). The mean and SD of the image quality scores in G4 and G15 were 4.9 ± 0.2 and 5.0 ± 0.0, respectively. The liver SNR in G2 was significantly higher than that in the full-dose group; the corresponding SNR were 11.7 ± 1.5 and 8.3 ± 1.2 (p < 0.001), respectively. The liver SNR significantly increased with the time of acquisition among G2, G4 and G15 (11.1 ± 1.7, 15.2 ± 3.4 and 30.5 ± 6.0, all p < 0.05). G15 served as the reference, and all these lesions (100%) could be identified by G2 and G4.

Conclusion

Total-body PET/CT with half-dose ¹⁸F-FDG activity in G2 and G4 achieved comparable image quality to conventional PET/CT, and its image quality was better than that of conventional PET/CT with clinical routine full-dose ¹⁸F-FDG in lung cancer.

Kandathil A, Kay FU, Butt YM, Wachsmann JW, Subramaniam RM. Role of FDG PET/CT in the eighth edition of TNM staging of non-small cell lung cancer. Radiographics. 2018;38:2134–49.PubMedCrossRef

Volpi S, Ali JM, Tasker A, Peryt A, Aresu G, Coonar AS. The role of positron emission tomography in the diagnosis, staging and response assessment of non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6(5):95.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Chen Z, Jiang S, Li Z, Rao L, Zhang X. Clinical value of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in prediction of visceral pleural invasion of subsolid nodule stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Acad Radiol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2020.01.019.

Doğan C, Fidan A, Cömert SŞ, Kıral N, Salepçi B, Parmaksıza ET, et al. Can PET-CT predict diagnostic success in ultrasonography-guided transthoracic fine needle aspiration biopsies in lung cancers? Pulmonology. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pulmoe.2019.12.005.

Nestle U, Schimek-Jasch T, Kremp S, Schaefer-Schuler A, Mix M, Küsters A, et al. Imaging-based target volume reduction in chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (PET-plan): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(4):581–92.PubMedCrossRef

Nutt R. The history of positron emission tomography. Mol Imaging Biol. 2002;4(1):11–26.PubMedCrossRef

Cherry SR, Jones T, Karp JS, Qi J, Moses WW, Badawi RD. Total-body PET: maximizing sensitivity to create new opportunities for clinical research and patient care. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(1):3–12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Karp JS, Viswanath V, Geagan MJ, Muehllehner G, Pantel AR, Parma MJ, et al. PennPET explorer: design and preliminary performance of a whole-body imager. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(1):136–43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Badawi RD, Shi H, Hu P, Chen S, Xu T, Price PM, et al. First human imaging studies with the EXPLORER total-body PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(3):299–303.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

10.

van Sluis J, Boellaard R, Somasundaram A, van Snick P, Borra R, Dierckx R, et al. Image quality and semiquantitative measurements on the biograph vision PET/CT system: initial experiences and comparison with the biograph mCT. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(1):129–35.PubMedCrossRef

11.

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.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Büsing KA, Schönberg SO, Brade J, Wasser K. Impact of blood glucose, diabetes, insulin, and obesity on standardized uptake values in tumors and healthy organs on ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT. Nucl Med Biol. 2013;40(2):206–13.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Hadi M, Bacharach SL, Whatley M, Libutti SK, Straus SE, Rao VK, et al. Glucose and insulin variations in patients during the time course of a FDG-PET study and implications for the “glucose-corrected” SUV. Nucl Med Biol. 2008;35(4):441–5.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Cook GJ, Wegner EA, Fogelman I. Pitfalls and artifacts in ¹⁸FDG PET and PET/CT oncologic imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2004;34(2):122–33.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Cheran SK, Nielsen ND, Patz EF Jr. False-negative findings for primary lung tumors on FDG positron emission tomography: staging and prognostic implications. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182(5):1129–32.CrossRef

16.

Asad S, Aquino SL, Piyavisetpat N, Fischman AJ. False-positive FDG positron emission tomography uptake in nonmalignant chest abnormalities. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182(4):983–9.CrossRef

17.

Pantel AR, Viswanath V, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Dubroff JG, Muehllehner G, Parma MJ, et al. PennPET explorer: human imaging on a whole-body imager. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(1):144–51.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

18.

Zhang X, Cherry SR, Xie Z, Shi H, Badawi RD, Qi J. Subsecond total-body imaging using ultrasensitive positron emission tomography. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(5):2265–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

19.

Zhang X, Xie Z, Berg E, Judenhofer MS, Liu W, Xu T, et al. Total-body dynamic reconstruction and parametric imaging on the uEXPLORER. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(2):285–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

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.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Zhang YQ, Hu PC, Wu RZ, Gu YS, Chen SG, Yu HJ, et al. The image quality, lesion detectability, and acquisition time of (18)F-FDG total-body PET/CT in oncological patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04823-w.

22.

Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Quon A, Schiepers C, Waldherr C, Silverman DH, et al. Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(5):797–801.PubMed

23.

Hausmann D, Dinter DJ, Sadick M, Brade J, Schoenberg SO, Büsing K. The impact of acquisition time on image quality in whole-body ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT for cancer staging. J Nucl Med Technol. 2012;40(4):255–8.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Total-body PET/CT using half-dose FDG and compared with conventional PET/CT using full-dose FDG in lung cancer
Authors: Hui Tan
Xiuli Sui
Hongyan Yin
Haojun Yu
Yusen Gu
Shuguang Chen
Pengcheng Hu
Wujian Mao
Hongcheng Shi
Publication date: 01-06-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Lung Cancer
Lung Cancer
Lung Cancer
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 6/2021
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05091-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Total-body PET/CT using half-dose FDG and compared with conventional PET/CT using full-dose FDG in lung cancer

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2021

Prognostic value of SPECT myocardial perfusion entropy in high-risk type 2 diabetic patients

Correction to: [18F]FDG -PET/CT uptake reveals a single metastasis inside vertebral hemangioma, catch me if you scan

[18F]-JK-PSMA-7 and [18F]-FDG tumour PET uptake in treated xenograft human prostate cancer model in mice

Predicting tumor response and outcome of second-look surgery with 18F-FDG PET/CT: insights from the GINECO CHIVA phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nintedanib in stage IIIc-IV FIGO ovarian cancer

18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI findings of Shulman syndrome also known as eosinophilic fasciitis

Prognostic implications of dual tracer PET/CT: PSMA ligand and [18F]FDG PET/CT in patients undergoing [177Lu]PSMA radioligand therapy