Top

Published in:

Open Access 06-01-2023 | Positron Emission Tomography | Invited Review Article

A review of harmonization strategies for quantitative PET

Authors: Go Akamatsu, Yuji Tsutsui, Hiromitsu Daisaki, Katsuhiko Mitsumoto, Shingo Baba, Masayuki Sasaki

Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine | Issue 2/2023

Abstract

PET can reveal in vivo biological processes at the molecular level. PET-derived quantitative values have been used as a surrogate marker for clinical decision-making in numerous clinical studies and trials. However, quantitative values in PET are variable depending on technical, biological, and physical factors. The variability may have a significant impact on a study outcome. Appropriate scanner calibration and quality control, standardization of imaging protocols, and any necessary harmonization strategies are essential to make use of PET as a biomarker with low bias and variability. This review summarizes benefits, limitations, and remaining challenges for harmonization of quantitative PET, including whole-body PET in oncology, brain PET in neurology, PET/MR, and non-¹⁸F PET imaging. This review is expected to facilitate harmonization of quantitative PET and to promote the contribution of PET-derived biomarkers to research and development in medicine.

Evangelista L, Zucchetta P, Moletta L, Serafini S, Cassarino G, Pegoraro N, et al. The role of FDG PET/CT or PET/MRI in assessing response to neoadjuvant therapy for patients with borderline or resectable pancreatic cancer: a systematic literature review. Ann Nucl Med. 2021;35:767–76.CrossRef

Meikle SR, Sossi V, Roncali E, Cherry SR, Banati R, Mankoff D, et al. Quantitative PET in the 2020s: a roadmap. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66:06FRM01.CrossRef

Raunig DL, McShane LM, Pennello G, Gatsonis C, Carson PL, Voyvodic JT, et al. Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015;24:27–67.CrossRef

O’Connor JPB, Aboagye EO, Adams JE, Aerts HJWL, Barrington SF, Beer AJ, et al. Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14:169–86.CrossRef

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

Han S, Kim Y, Woo S, Kim T-H, Ryu J-S. Prognostic and predictive values of interim 18F-FDG PET during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Nucl Med. 2021;35:447–57.CrossRef

Mankoff DA, Pryma DA, Clark AS. Molecular imaging biomarkers for oncology clinical trials. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:525–8.CrossRef

Xu J, Li Y, Xie L, Sun X, Cai Z, Wang S, et al. An evaluation of the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma of extremities: PERCIST versus RECIST 1.1 criteria after long-term follow-up. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36:553–61.CrossRef

Guo H, Xu K, Duan G, Wen L, He Y. Progress and future prospective of FDG-PET/CT imaging combined with optimized procedures in lung cancer: toward precision medicine. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36:1–14.CrossRef

10.

Fahey FH, Kinahan PE, Doot RK, Kocak M, Thurston H, Poussaint TY. Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium. Med Phys. 2010;37:3660–6.CrossRef

11.

Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):11S-20S.CrossRef

12.

Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:310–20.CrossRef

13.

Quak E, le Roux P-Y, Lasnon C, Robin P, Hofman MS, Bourhis D, et al. Does PET SUV harmonization affect PERCIST response classification? J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1699–706.CrossRef

14.

Houdu B, Lasnon C, Licaj I, Thomas G, Do P, Guizard A-V, et al. Why harmonization is needed when using FDG PET/CT as a prognosticator: demonstration with EARL-compliant SUV as an independent prognostic factor in lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:421–8.CrossRef

15.

Doot RK, Kurland BF, Kinahan PE, Mankoff DA. Design considerations for using PET as a response measure in single site and multicenter clinical trials. Acad Radiol. 2012;19:184–90.CrossRef

16.

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.CrossRef

17.

Quak E, le Roux P-Y, 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;42:2072–82.CrossRef

18.

Lasnon C, Majdoub M, Lavigne B, Do P, Madelaine J, Visvikis D, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT heterogeneity quantification through textural features in the era of harmonisation programs: a focus on lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:2324–35.CrossRef

19.

Lasnon C, Quak E, le Roux P-Y, Robin P, Hofman MS, Bourhis D, et al. EORTC PET response criteria are more influenced by reconstruction inconsistencies than PERCIST but both benefit from the EARL harmonization program. EJNMMI Physics. 2017;4:17.CrossRef

20.

Panetta JV, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Karp JS. Validation of phantom-based harmonization for patient harmonization. Med Phys. 2017;44:3534–44.CrossRef

21.

Tsutsui Y, Daisaki H, Akamatsu G, Umeda T, Ogawa M, Kajiwara H, et al. Multicentre analysis of PET SUV using vendor-neutral software: the Japanese harmonization technology (J-Hart) study. EJNMMI Res. 2018;8:83.CrossRef

22.

Kaalep A, Sera T, Rijnsdorp S, Yaqub M, Talsma A, Lodge MA, et al. Feasibility of state of the art PET/CT systems performance harmonization. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1344–61.CrossRef

23.

Orlhac F, Boughdad S, Philippe C, Stalla-Bourdillon H, Nioche C, Champion L, et al. A postreconstruction harmonization method for multicenter radiomic studies in PET. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1321–8.CrossRef

24.

Namías M, Bradshaw T, Menezes VO, Machado MAD, Jeraj R. A novel approach for quantitative harmonization in PET. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63:095019.CrossRef

25.

Rubello D, Colletti PM. SUV harmonization between different hybrid PET/CT systems. Clin Nucl Med. 2018;43:811–4.CrossRef

26.

Kaneta T, Daisaki H, Ogawa M, Liu E-T, Iizuka H, Arisawa T, et al. Use of count-based image reconstruction to evaluate the variability and repeatability of measured standardised uptake values. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0192549.CrossRef

27.

Kaalep A, Burggraaff CN, Pieplenbosch S, Verwer EE, Sera T, Zijlstra J, et al. Quantitative implications of the updated EARL 2019 PET–CT performance standards. EJNMMI Phys. 2019;6:1–16.CrossRef

28.

Machado MAD, Menezes VO, Namías M, Vieira NS, Queiroz CC, Matheoud R, et al. Protocols for harmonized quantification and noise reduction in low-dose oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med Technol. 2019;47:47–54.CrossRef

29.

Daisaki H, Kitajima K, Nakajo M, Watabe T, Ito K, Sakamoto F, et al. Usefulness of semi-automatic harmonization strategy of standardized uptake values for multicenter PET studies. Sci Rep. 2021;11:8517.CrossRef

30.

Prenosil GA, Hentschel M, Weitzel T, Sari H, Shi K, Afshar-Oromieh A, et al. EARL compliance measurements on the biograph vision Quadra PET/CT system with a long axial field of view. EJNMMI Physics. 2022;9:26.CrossRef

31.

Monsef A, Ay MR, Sheikhzadeh P, Geramifar P, Rahmim A, Ghafarian P. Harmonization based on quantitative analysis of standardized uptake value variations across PET/CT scanners: a multicenter phantom study. Nucl Med Commun. 2022;43:1004–14.CrossRef

32.

Jiménez-Ortega E, Agüera R, Ureba A, Balcerzyk M, Wals-Zurita A, García-Gómez FJ, et al. Implications of the Harmonization of [18F]FDG-PET/CT imaging for response assessment of treatment in radiotherapy planning. Tomography. 2022;8:1097–112.CrossRef

33.

Akamatsu G, Shimada N, Matsumoto K, Daisaki H, Suzuki K, Watabe H, et al. New standards for phantom image quality and SUV harmonization range for multicenter oncology PET studies. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36:144–61.CrossRef

34.

DiFilippo FP, Patel M, Patel S. Automated quantitative analysis of american college of radiology PET phantom images. J Nucl Med Technol. 2019;47:249–54.CrossRef

35.

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;50:1187–93.CrossRef

36.

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.CrossRef

37.

Ulrich EJ, Sunderland JJ, Smith BJ, Mohiuddin I, Parkhurst J, Plichta KA, et al. Automated model-based quantitative analysis of phantoms with spherical inserts in FDG PET scans. Med Phys. 2018;45:258–76.CrossRef

38.

Kaalep A, Sera T, Oyen W, Krause BJ, Chiti A, Liu Y, et al. EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation-summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:412–22.CrossRef

39.

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 Imag. 2015;42:328–54.CrossRef

40.

FDG-PET/CT Technical Committee. FDG-PET/CT as an imaging biomarker measuring response to cancer therapy. Quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance, version 1.13, technically confirmed version. QIBA, Nov 18, 2016. Available from: RSNA.ORG/QIBA

41.

Kinahan PE, Perlman ES, Sunderland JJ, Subramaniam R, Wollenweber SD, Turkington TG, et al. The QIBA Profile for FDG PET/CT as an imaging biomarker measuring response to cancer therapy. Radiology. 2020;294:647–57.CrossRef

42.

Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine. Standard PET imaging protocols and phantom test procedures and criteria: executive summary. 2017. Available from: http://jsnm.sakura.ne.jp/wp_jsnm/wp-content/themes/theme_jsnm/doc/StandardPETProtocolPhantom20170201.pdf (Accessed 16 Dec 2022)

43.

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.CrossRef

44.

Kelly MD, Declerck JM. SUVref: reducing reconstruction-dependent variation in PET SUV. EJNMMI Res. 2011;1:16.CrossRef

45.

Ito K, Kitajima K, Toriihara A, Ishibashi M, Nakahara T, Daisaki H, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT for monitoring anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer using SUV harmonization of results obtained with various types of PET/CT scanners used at different centers. Ann Nucl Med. 2021;35:1253–63.CrossRef

46.

Kitajima K, Watabe T, Nakajo M, Ishibashi M, Daisaki H, Soeda F, et al. Tumor response evaluation in patients with malignant melanoma undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and prognosis prediction using 18F-FDG PET/CT: multicenter study for comparison of EORTC, PERCIST, and imPERCIST. Jpn J Radiol. 2022;40:75–85.CrossRef

47.

Phelps ME. PET: the merging of biology and imaging into molecular imaging. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:661–81.

48.

Joshi A, Koeppe RA, Fessler JA. Reducing between scanner differences in multi-center PET studies. Neuroimage. 2009;46:154–9.CrossRef

49.

Ikari Y, Akamatsu G, Nishio T, Ishii K, Ito K, Iwatsubo T, et al. Phantom criteria for qualification of brain FDG and amyloid PET across different cameras. EJNMMI Physics. 2016;3:23.CrossRef

50.

Ikari Y, Nishio T, Makishi Y, Miya Y, Ito K, Koeppe RA, et al. Head motion evaluation and correction for PET scans with 18F-FDG in the Japanese Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative (J-ADNI) multi-center study. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26:535–44.CrossRef

51.

Verwer EE, Golla SSV, Kaalep A, Lubberink M, van Velden FHP, Bettinardi V, et al. Harmonisation of PET/CT contrast recovery performance for brain studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:2856–70.CrossRef

52.

Akamatsu G, Ikari Y, Nishio T, Nishida H, Ohnishi A, Aita K, et al. Optimization of image reconstruction conditions with phantoms for brain FDG and amyloid PET imaging. Ann Nucl Med. 2016;30:18–28.CrossRef

53.

Hoffman EJ, Cutler PD, Guerrero TM, Digby WM, Mazziotta JC. Assessment of accuracy of PET utilizing a 3-D phantom to simulate the activity distribution of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the human brain. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1991;11:A17-25.CrossRef

54.

Hoye J, Toyonaga T, Zakiniaeiz Y, Stanley G, Hampson M, Morris ED. Harmonization of [11C]raclopride brain PET images from the HR+ and HRRT: method development and validation in human subjects. EJNMMI Physics. 2022;9:27.CrossRef

55.

Iida H, Hori Y, Ishida K, Imabayashi E, Matsuda H, Takahashi M, et al. Three-dimensional brain phantom containing bone and grey matter structures with a realistic head contour. Ann Nucl Med. 2013;27:25–36.CrossRef

56.

Fahey F, Christian P, Zukotynski K, Sexton-Stallone B, Kiss C, Clarke B, et al. Use of a qualification phantom for PET brain imaging in a multicenter consortium: a collaboration between the pediatric brain tumor consortium and the SNMMI clinical trials network. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:677–82.CrossRef

57.

Graham MS, Krebs S, Bale T, Domfe K, Lobaugh SM, Zhang Z, et al. Value of [18F]-FDG positron emission tomography in patients with recurrent glioblastoma receiving bevacizumab. Neurooncol Adv. 2020;2:1–9.

58.

Azad N, Yu M, Davidson B, Choyke P, Chen CC, Wood BJ, et al. Translational predictive biomarker analysis of the phase 1b Sorafenib and Bevacizumab study expansion cohort. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2013;12:1621–31.CrossRef

59.

Scott AM, Mitchell PL, O’Keefe G, Saunder T, Hicks RJ, Poon A, et al. Pharmacodynamic analysis of tumour perfusion assessed by 15O-water-PET imaging during treatment with sunitinib malate in patients with advanced malignancies. EJNMMI Res. 2012;2:31.CrossRef

60.

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.CrossRef

61.

Garrett CR, Siu LL, El-Khoueiry A, Buter J, Rocha-Lima CM, Marshall J, et al. Phase I dose-escalation study to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of brivanib alaninate in combination with full-dose cetuximab in patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies who have failed prior therapy. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:44–52.CrossRef

62.

Haug AR, Auernhammer CJ, Wängler B, Schmidt GP, Uebleis C, Göke B, et al. 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT for the Early prediction of response to somatostatin receptor-mediated radionuclide therapy in patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1349–56.CrossRef

63.

Kitajima K, Miyoshi Y, Sekine T, Takei H, Ito K, Suto A, et al. Harmonized pretreatment quantitative volume-based FDG-PET/CT parameters for prognosis of stage I-III breast cancer: Multicenter study. Oncotarget. 2021;12:95–105.CrossRef

64.

Sevigny J, Chiao P, Bussière T, Weinreb PH, Williams L, Maier M, et al. The antibody aducanumab reduces Aβ plaques in Alzheimer’s disease. Nature. 2016;537:50–6.CrossRef

65.

Sevigny J, Suhy J, Chiao P, Chen T, Klein G, Purcell D, et al. Amyloid PET screening for enrichment of early-stage alzheimer disease clinical trials. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2016;30:1–7.CrossRef

66.

Senda M, Ishii K, Ito K, Ikeuchi T, Matsuda H, Iwatsubo T, et al. A Japanese multicenter study on PET and other biomarkers for subjects with potential preclinical and prodromal Alzheimer’s disease. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2021;8:1–8.

67.

Da-Ano R, Visvikis D, Hatt M. Harmonization strategies for multicenter radiomics investigations. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65:24TR02.CrossRef

68.

Klunk WE, Koeppe RA, Price JC, Benzinger TL, Devous MD, Jagust WJ, et al. The centiloid project: standardizing quantitative amyloid plaque estimation by PET. Alzheimer Dement. 2015;11:1–15.CrossRef

69.

Navitsky M, Joshi AD, Kennedy I, Klunk WE, Rowe CC, Wong DF, et al. Standardization of amyloid quantitation with florbetapir standardized uptake value ratios to the Centiloid scale. Alzheimer Dement. 2018;14:1565–71.CrossRef

70.

Battle MR, Pillay LC, Lowe VJ, Knopman D, Kemp B, Rowe CC, et al. Centiloid scaling for quantification of brain amyloid with [18F] flutemetamol using multiple processing methods. EJNMMI Res. 2018;8:107.CrossRef

71.

Rowe CC, Doré V, Jones G, Baxendale D, Mulligan RS, Bullich S, et al. 18F-Florbetaben PET beta-amyloid binding expressed in Centiloids. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:2053–9.CrossRef

72.

Yamao T, Miwa K, Wagatsuma K, Shigemoto Y, Sato N, Akamatsu G, et al. Centiloid scale analysis for 18F-THK5351 PET imaging in Alzheimer’s disease. Phys Med. 2021;82:249–54.CrossRef

73.

Johnson WE, Li C, Rabinovic A. Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. Biostatistics. 2007;8:118–27.CrossRef

74.

Orlhac F, Eertink JJ, Cottereau A-S, Zijlstra JM, Thieblemont C, Meignan M, et al. A guide to combat harmonization of imaging biomarkers in multicenter studies. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:172–9.CrossRef

75.

Dissaux G, Visvikis D, Da-ano R, Pradier O, Chajon E, Barillot I, et al. Pretreatment 18 F-FDG PET/CT radiomics predict local recurrence in patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a multicentric study. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:814–20.CrossRef

76.

Hotta M, Minamimoto R, Gohda Y, Miwa K, Otani K, Kiyomatsu T, et al. Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT with texture analysis in patients with rectal cancer treated by surgery. Ann Nucl Med. 2021;35:843–52.CrossRef

77.

Nakamoto Y, Kitajima K, Toriihara A, Nakajo M, Hirata K. Recent topics of the clinical utility of PET/MRI in oncology and neuroscience. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36:798–803.CrossRef

78.

Ito H, Kubo H, Takahashi K, Nishijima K-I, Ukon N, Nemoto A, et al. Integrated PET/MRI scanner with oxygen-15 labeled gases for quantification of cerebral blood flow, cerebral blood volume, cerebral oxygen extraction fraction and cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen. Ann Nucl Med. 2021;35:421–8.CrossRef

79.

Ratib O, Nkoulou R. Potential applications of PET/MR imaging in cardiology. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:40S-46S.CrossRef

80.

Zaidi H, Ojha N, Morich M, Griesmer J, Hu Z, Maniawski P, et al. Design and performance evaluation of a whole-body Ingenuity TF PET-MRI system. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:3091–106.CrossRef

81.

Delso G, Fürst 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;52:1914–22.CrossRef

82.

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;43:2334–43.CrossRef

83.

Chen S, Gu Y, Yu H, Chen X, Cao T, Hu L, et al. NEMA NU2-2012 performance measurements of the United Imaging uPMR790: an integrated PET/MR system. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:1726–35.CrossRef

84.

Wollenweber SD, Ambwani S, Lonn AHR, Shanbhag DD, Thiruvenkadam S, Kaushik S, et al. Comparison of 4-class and continuous fat/water methods for whole-body, MR-based PET attenuation correction. IEEE NSS/MIC Conf Rec. 2012;2012:3019–25.

85.

Samarin A, Burger C, Wollenweber SD, Crook DW, Burger IA, Schmid DT, et al. PET/MR imaging of bone lesions – implications for PET quantification from imperfect attenuation correction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1154–60.CrossRef

86.

Aznar MC, Sersar R, Saabye J, Ladefoged CN, Andersen FL, Rasmussen JH, et al. Whole-body PET/MRI: the effect of bone attenuation during MR-based attenuation correction in oncology imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:1177–83.CrossRef

87.

Chen Y, An H. Attenuation correction of PET/MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017;25:245–55.CrossRef

88.

Berker Y, Franke J, Salomon A, Palmowski M, Donker HCW, Temur Y, et al. MRI-based attenuation correction for hybrid PET/MRI systems: A 4-class tissue segmentation technique using a combined ultrashort-echo-time/dixon MRI sequence. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:796–804.CrossRef

89.

Sekine T, ter Voert EEGW, Warnock G, Buck A, Huellner M, Veit-Haibach P, et al. Clinical evaluation of zero-echo-time attenuation correction for brain 18F-FDG PET/MRI: Comparison with atlas attenuation correction. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1927–32.CrossRef

90.

Liu F, Jang H, Kijowski R, Bradshaw T, McMillan AB. Deep Learning MR imaging–based attenuation correction for PET/MR imaging. Radiology. 2018;286:676–84.CrossRef

91.

Leynes AP, Yang J, Wiesinger F, Kaushik SS, Shanbhag DD, Seo Y, et al. Zero-echo-time and dixon deep pseudo-CT (ZeDD CT): direct generation of pseudo-CT images for pelvic PET/MRI attenuation correction using deep convolutional neural networks with multiparametric MRI. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:852–8.CrossRef

92.

Hashimoto F, Ito M, Ote K, Isobe T, Okada H, Ouchi Y. Deep-learning-based attenuation correction for brain PET with various radiotracers. Ann Nucl Med. 2021;35:691–701.CrossRef

93.

Ziegler S, Braun H, Ritt P, Hocke C, Kuwert T, Quick HH. Systematic evaluation of phantom fluids for simultaneous PET/MR hybrid imaging. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1464–71.CrossRef

94.

Boellaard R, Rausch I, Beyer T, Delso G, Yaqub M, Quick HH, et al. Quality control for quantitative multicenter whole-body PET/MR studies: a NEMA image quality phantom study with three current PET/MR systems. Med Phys. 2015;42:5961–9.CrossRef

95.

Ziegler S, Jakoby BW, Braun H, Paulus DH, Quick HH. NEMA image quality phantom measurements and attenuation correction in integrated PET/MR hybrid imaging. EJNMMI Physics. 2015;2:181–214.CrossRef

96.

Laforest R, Khalighi M, Natsuaki Y, Rajagopal A, Chandramohan D, Byrd D, et al. Harmonization of PET image reconstruction parameters in simultaneous PET/MRI. EJNMMI Physics. 2021;8:75.CrossRef

97.

Jentzen W, Phaosricharoen J, Gomez B, Hetkamp P, Stebner V, Binse I, et al. Quantitative performance of 124I PET/MR of neck lesions in thyroid cancer patients using 124I PET/CT as reference. EJNMMI Physics. 2018;5:13.CrossRef

98.

Ribeiro D, Hallett W, Tavares AAS. Performance evaluation of the Q.Clear reconstruction framework versus conventional reconstruction algorithms for quantitative brain PET-MR studies. EJNMMI Phys. 2021;8:41.CrossRef

99.

Teuho J, Johansson J, Linden J, Hansen AE, Holm S, Keller SH, et al. Effect of attenuation correction on regional quantification between PET/MR and PET/CT: a multicenter study using a 3-dimensional brain phantom. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:818–24.CrossRef

100.

Lennie E, Tsoumpas C, Sourbron S. Multimodal phantoms for clinical PET/MRI. EJNMMI Physics. 2021;8:62.CrossRef

101.

Harries J, Jochimsen TH, Scholz T, Schlender T, Barthel H, Sabri O, et al. A realistic phantom of the human head for PET-MRI. EJNMMI Physics. 2020;7:52.CrossRef

102.

Rausch I, Valladares A, Sundar LKS, Beyer T, Hacker M, Meyerspeer M, et al. Standard MRI-based attenuation correction for PET/MRI phantoms: a novel concept using MRI-visible polymer. EJNMMI Physics. 2021;8:18.CrossRef

103.

Catana C, Laforest R, An H, Boada F, Cao T, Faul D, et al. A path to qualification of PET/MRI scanners for multicenter brain imaging studies: evaluation of MRI-based attenuation correction methods using a patient phantom. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:615–21.CrossRef

104.

Kato A, Nakamoto Y, Ishimori T, Hayakawa N, Ueda M, Temma T, et al. Diagnostic performance of 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT in tumor-induced osteomalacia. Ann Nucl Med. 2021;35:397–405.CrossRef

105.

Langbein T, Weber WA, Eiber M. Future of theranostics: an outlook on precision oncology in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:13S-19S.CrossRef

106.

Kömek H, Can C, Güzel Y, Oruç Z, Gündoğan C, Yildirim ÖA, et al. 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT, a new step in breast cancer imaging: a comparative pilot study with the 18F-FDG PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2021;35:744–52.CrossRef

107.

Donin NM, Reiter RE. Why targeting PSMA is a game changer in the management of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:177–82.CrossRef

108.

Kratochwil C, Bruchertseifer F, Giesel FL, Weis M, Verburg FA, Mottaghy F, et al. 225Ac-PSMA-617 for PSMA-targeted α-radiation therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1941–4.CrossRef

109.

Plyku D, Hobbs RF, Wu D, Garcia C, Sgouros G, van Nostrand D. I-124 PET/CT image-based dosimetry in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer treated with I-131: correlation of patient-specific lesional dosimetry to treatment response. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36:213–23.CrossRef

110.

Jauw YWS, O’Donoghue JA, Zijlstra JM, Hoekstra OS, der Houven M-V, van Oordt CW, Morschhauser F, et al. 89Zr-immuno-PET: toward a noninvasive clinical tool to measure target engagement of therapeutic antibodies in vivo. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:1825–32.CrossRef

111.

Wu AM. Antibodies and antimatter: the resurgence of immuno-PET. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:2–5.CrossRef

112.

Conti M, Eriksson L. Physics of pure and non-pure positron emitters for PET: a review and a discussion. EJNMMI Physics. 2016;3:8.CrossRef

113.

Soderlund AT, Chaal J, Tjio G, Totman JJ, Conti M, Townsend DW. Beyond 18F-FDG: CHARACTERIZATION of PET/CT and PET/MR scanners for a comprehensive set of positron emitters of growing application—18F, 11C, 89Zr, 124I, 68Ga, and 90Y. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1285–91.CrossRef

114.

Meng X, Liu H, Li H, Wang S, Sun H, Wang F, et al. Evaluating the impact of different positron emitters on the performance of a clinical PET/MR system. Med Phys. 2022;49:2642–51.CrossRef

115.

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;65:318–27.CrossRef

116.

Moses WW. Fundamental limits of spatial resolution in PET. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2011;648:S236–40.CrossRef

117.

Carter LM, Kesner AL, Pratt EC, Sanders VA, Massicano AVF, Cutler CS, et al. The impact of positron range on PET resolution, evaluated with phantoms and PHITS monte carlo simulations for conventional and non-conventional radionuclides. Mol Imaging Biol. 2020;22:73–84.CrossRef

118.

Braune A, Oehme L, Freudenberg R, Hofheinz F, van den Hoff J, Kotzerke J, et al. Comparison of image quality and spatial resolution between 18F, 68Ga, and 64Cu phantom measurements using a digital Biograph Vision PET/CT. EJNMMI Physics. 2022;9:58.CrossRef

119.

Disselhorst JA, Brom M, Laverman P, Slump CH, Boerman OC, Oyen WJG, et al. Image-quality assessment for several positron emitters using the NEMA NU 4–2008 standards in the siemens inveon small-animal PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:610–7.CrossRef

120.

Teuho J, Riehakainen L, Honkaniemi A, Moisio O, Han C, Tirri M, et al. Evaluation of image quality with four positron emitters and three preclinical PET/CT systems. EJNMMI Res. 2020;10:155.CrossRef

121.

Huizing DMV, Koopman D, van Dalen JA, Gotthardt M, Boellaard R, Sera T, et al. Multicentre quantitative 68Ga PET/CT performance harmonisation. EJNMMI Physics. 2019;6:19.CrossRef

122.

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;55:264–7.CrossRef

123.

Kaalep A, Huisman M, Sera T, Vugts D, Boellaard R. Feasibility of PET/CT system performance harmonisation for quantitative multicentre 89Zr studies. EJNMMI Physics. 2018;5:26.CrossRef

124.

Christian PE, Williams S-P, Burrell L, Castaneda P, Albiani J, Sandella N, et al. Optimization of 89Zr PET imaging for improved multisite quantification and lesion detection using an anthropomorphic phantom. J Nucl Med Technol. 2020;48:54–7.CrossRef

125.

Bailey DL, Hofman MS, Forwood NJ, O’Keefe GJ, Scott AM, van Wyngaardt WM, et al. Accuracy of dose calibrators for 68Ga PET imaging: unexpected findings in a multicenter clinical pretrial assessment. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:636–8.CrossRef

126.

Sanderson T, Solomon J, Nottage C, Dickson J. Underestimation of 68Ga PET/CT SUV caused by activity overestimation using default calibrator settings. Phys Med. 2019;59:158–62.CrossRef

127.

Beattie BJ, Pentlow KS, O’Donoghue J, Humm JL. A Recommendation for revised dose calibrator measurement procedures for 89Zr and 124I. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e106868.CrossRef

128.

Aide N, Lasnon C, Kesner A, Levin CS, Buvat I, Iagaru A, et al. New PET technologies–embracing progress and pushing the limits. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:2711–26.CrossRef

129.

de Jong TL, Koopman D, van Dalen JA, Tegelaar A, van Dijk JD, Stevens H, et al. Performance of digital PET/CT compared with conventional PET/CT in oncologic patients: a prospective comparison study. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36:756–64.CrossRef

130.

Alberts I, Sachpekidis C, Prenosil G, Viscione M, Bohn KP, Mingels C, et al. Digital PET/CT allows for shorter acquisition protocols or reduced radiopharmaceutical dose in [18F]-FDG PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2021;35:485–92.CrossRef

131.

Spencer BA, Berg E, Schmall JP, Omidvari N, Leung EK, Abdelhafez YG, et al. Performance evaluation of the uEXPLORER Total-Body PET/CT scanner based on NEMA NU 2–2018 with additional tests to characterize PET scanners with a long axial field of view. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:861–70.CrossRef

132.

Prenosil GA, Sari H, Fürstner M, Afshar-Oromieh A, Shi K, Rominger A, et al. Performance characteristics of the biograph vision quadra PET/CT system with a long axial field of view using the NEMA NU 2–2018 standard. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:476–84.CrossRef

133.

Akamatsu G, Takahashi M, Tashima H, Iwao Y, Yoshida E, Wakizaka H, et al. Performance evaluation of VRAIN: a brain-dedicated PET with a hemispherical detector arrangement. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67:225011.CrossRef

134.

Onishi Y, Isobe T, Ito M, Hashimoto F, Omura T, Yoshikawa E. Performance evaluation of dedicated brain PET scanner with motion correction system. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;36:746–55.CrossRef

Title: A review of harmonization strategies for quantitative PET
Authors: Go Akamatsu
Yuji Tsutsui
Hiromitsu Daisaki
Katsuhiko Mitsumoto
Shingo Baba
Masayuki Sasaki
Publication date: 06-01-2023
Publisher: Springer Nature Singapore
Keyword: Positron Emission Tomography
Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine / Issue 2/2023
Print ISSN: 0914-7187
Electronic ISSN: 1864-6433
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-022-01820-x

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

A review of harmonization strategies for quantitative PET

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2023

Glucose metabolic heterogeneity correlates with pathological features and improves survival stratification of resectable lung adenocarcinoma

Dosimetry and efficacy of a tau PET tracer [18F]MK-6240 in Japanese healthy elderly and patients with Alzheimer’s disease

Comparison of 1-h with 3-h planar 99mTc-pyrophosphate scintigraphy in patients with suspected transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis using SPECT as a reference standard

The evaluation of DLCO changes in patients with relatively higher lung shunt fractions receiving TARE

Evaluation of standardized uptake value on 131I-6β-iodomethyl-19-norcholesterol scintigraphy for diagnosis of primary aldosteronism and correspondence with adrenal venous sampling

Reproducibility assessment of uptake on dedicated breast PET for noise discrimination