Top

EJNMMI Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Original research

Monitoring scanner calibration using the image-derived arterial blood SUV in whole-body FDG-PET

Authors: Jens Maus, Frank Hofheinz, Ivayla Apostolova, Michael C. Kreissl, Jörg Kotzerke, Jörg van den Hoff

Published in: EJNMMI Research | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

The current de facto standard for quantification of tumor metabolism in oncological whole-body PET is the standardized uptake value (SUV) approach. SUV determination requires accurate scanner calibration. Residual inaccuracies of the calibration lead to biased SUV values. Especially, this can adversely affect multicenter trials where it is difficult to ensure reliable cross-calibration across participating sites. The goal of the present work was the evaluation of a new method for monitoring scanner calibration utilizing the image-derived arterial blood SUV (BSUV) averaged over a sufficiently large number of whole-body FDG-PET investigations.

Data of 681 patients from three sites which underwent routine ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT or PET/MR were retrospectively analyzed. BSUV was determined in the descending aorta using a three-dimensional ROI concentric to the aorta’s centerline. The ROI was delineated in the CT or MRI images and transferred to the PET images. A minimum ROI volume of 5 mL and a concentric safety margin to the aortic wall was observed. Mean BSUV, standard deviation (SD), and standard error of the mean (SE) were computed for three groups of patients at each site, investigated 2 years apart, respectively, with group sizes between 53 and 100 patients. Differences of mean BSUV between the individual groups and sites were determined.

Results

SD (SE) of BSUV in the different groups ranged from 14.3 to 20.7% (1.7 to 2.8%). Differences of mean BSUV between intra-site groups were small (1.1–6.3%). Only one out of nine of these differences reached statistical significance. Inter-site differences were distinctly larger (12.6–25.1%) and highly significant (P<0.001).

Conclusions

Image-based determination of the group-averaged blood SUV in modestly large groups of whole-body FDG-PET investigations is a viable approach for ensuring consistent scanner calibration over time and across different sites. We propose this approach as a quality control and cross-calibration tool augmenting established phantom-based procedures.

Visser EP, Boerman OC, Oyen WJG. SUV: from silly useless value to smart uptake value. J Nucl Med. 2010; 51(2):173–5. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.109.068411.

Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009; 50(Suppl_1):11–20. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057182.

Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, Graham MM, Karp J, Lammertsma AA, Larson S, Mankoff DA, Siegel BA, Van den Abbeele A, Yap J, Sullivan D, National Cancer Institute. 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(6):1059–66.PubMed

Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJG, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, Verzijlbergen FJ, Barrington SF, Pike LC, Weber WA, Stroobants S, Delbeke D, Donohoe KJ, Holbrook S, Graham MM, Testanera G, Hoekstra OS, Zijlstra J, Visser E, Hoekstra CJ, Pruim J, Willemsen A, Arends B, Kotzerke J, Bockisch A, Beyer T, Chiti A, Krause BJ. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42(2):328–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.

Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, Brown ML, Royal HD, Siegel BA, Townsend DW, Berland LL, Parker JA, Hubner K, Stabin MG, Zubal G, Kachelriess M, Cronin V, Holbrook S. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2006; 47(5):885–95.PubMed

Boellaard R, Oyen WJG, Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Visser EP, Willemsen AT, Arends B, Verzijlbergen FJ, Zijlstra J, Paans AM, Comans EFI, Pruim J. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008; 35(12):2320–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-008-0874-2.

Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Wit M, Ivancević V, Bares R, Munz DL. Multicenter comparison of calibration and cross calibration of PET scanners. J Nucl Med. 2002; 43(5):635–9.PubMed

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; 44(S1):17–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3740-2.

Fahey FH, Kinahan PE, Doot RK, Kocak M, Thurston H, Poussaint TY. Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium. Med Phys. 2010; 37(7Part1):3660–6. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3455705.

10.

Scheuermann JS, Saffer JR, Karp JS, Levering AM, Siegel BA. Qualification of PET Scanners for Use in Multicenter Cancer Clinical Trials: the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Experience. J Nucl Med. 2009; 50(7):1187–93. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057455.

11.

Maus J, Hofheinz F, Schramm G, Oehme L, Beuthien-Baumann B, Lukas M, Buchert R, Steinbach J, Kotzerke J, van den Hoff J. Evaluation of PET quantification accuracy in vivo: Comparison of measured FDG concentration in the bladder with urine samples. Nuklearmedizin. 2014; 53(3):67–77. https://doi.org/10.3413/Nukmed-0588-13-05.

12.

Maus J, Schramm G, Hofheinz F, Oehme L, Lougovski A, Petr J, Platzek I, Beuthien-Baumann B, Steinbach J, Kotzerke J, van den Hoff J. Evaluation of in vivo quantification accuracy of the Ingenuity-TF PET/MR. Med Phys. 2015; 42(10):5773–81. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4929936.

13.

Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Quak E, Gervais R, Do P, Dubos-Arvis C, Aide N. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2391-1.

14.

van den Hoff J, Oehme L, Schramm G, Maus J, Lougovski A, Petr J, Beuthien-Baumann B, Hofheinz F. The PET-derived tumor-to-blood standard uptake ratio (SUR) is superior to tumor SUV as a surrogate parameter of the metabolic rate of FDG. EJNMMI Res. 2013; 3(1):77. https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-219X-3-77.

15.

van den Hoff J, Lougovski A, Schramm G, Maus J, Oehme L, Petr J, Beuthien-Baumann B, Kotzerke J, Hofheinz F. Correction of scan time dependence of standard uptake values in oncological PET. EJNMMI Res. 2014; 4(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-219X-4-18.

16.

Boktor RR, Walker G, Stacey R, Gledhill S, Pitman AG. Reference range for intrapatient variability in blood-pool and liver SUV for 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2013; 54(5):677–82. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.108530.

17.

Hofheinz F, Bütof R, Apostolova I, Zöphel K, Steffen IG, Amthauer H, Kotzerke J, Baumann M, van den Hoff J. An investigation of the relation between tumor-to-liver ratio (TLR) and tumor-to-blood standard uptake ratio (SUR) in oncological FDG PET. EJNMMI Res. 2016; 6(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-016-0174-y.

18.

R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; ISBN 3-900051-07-0; 2017. http://www.r-project.org/.

19.

Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, Hoekstra O, Paans A, Visser E, van Lanschot J, Sloof G, Boellaard R. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-006-0224-1.

20.

Bütof R, Hofheinz F, Zöphel K, Stadelmann T, Schmollack J, Jentsch C, Lock S, Kotzerke J, Baumann M, van den Hoff J. Prognostic value of pretherapeutic tumor-to-blood standardized uptake ratio in patients with esophageal carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2015; 56(8):1150–6. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.155309.

21.

Hofheinz F, van den Hoff J, Steffen IG, Lougovski A, Ego K, Amthauer H, Apostolova I. Comparative evaluation of SUV, tumor-to-blood standard uptake ratio (SUR), and dual time point measurements for assessment of the metabolic uptake rate in FDG PET. EJNMMI Res. 2016; 6(1):53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-016-0208-5.

22.

Hofheinz F, Apostolova I, Oehme L, Kotzerke J, van den Hoff J. Test–retest variability in lesion SUV and lesion SUR in 18 F-FDG PET: an analysis of data from two prospective multicenter trials. J Nucl Med. 2017; 58(11):1770–5. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.190736.

Title: Monitoring scanner calibration using the image-derived arterial blood SUV in whole-body FDG-PET
Authors: Jens Maus
Frank Hofheinz
Ivayla Apostolova
Michael C. Kreissl
Jörg Kotzerke
Jörg van den Hoff
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: EJNMMI Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2191-219X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-018-0391-7

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Monitoring scanner calibration using the image-derived arterial blood SUV in whole-body FDG-PET

Abstract

Background

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Simplifying [18F]GE-179 PET: are both arterial blood sampling and 90-min acquisitions essential?

Feasibility of 15O-water PET studies of auditory system activation during general anesthesia in children

Evaluation of D-isomers of 4-borono-2-18F-fluoro-phenylalanine and O-11C-methyl-tyrosine as brain tumor imaging agents: a comparative PET study with their L-isomers in rat brain glioma

Positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (PET-MRI) for response assessment after radiation therapy of cervical carcinoma: a pilot study

The renal blood flow reserve in healthy humans and patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease measured by positron emission tomography using [15O]H2O

Volume of interest delineation techniques for 18F-FDG PET-CT scans during neoadjuvant extremity soft tissue sarcoma treatment in adults: a feasibility study