Cargando…
Harmonization of standard uptake values across different positron emission tomography/computed tomography systems and different reconstruction algorithms: validation in oncology patients
BACKGROUND: EQ.PET is a software package that overcomes the reconstruction-dependent variation of standard uptake values (SUV). In this study, we validated the use of EQ.PET for harmonizing SUVs between different positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) systems and reconstruction al...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10017904/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36920590 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40658-023-00540-z |
_version_ | 1784907694747942912 |
---|---|
author | Song, Yufei Meng, Xiangxi Cao, Zhen Zhao, Wei Zhang, Yan Guo, Rui Zhou, Xin Yang, Zhi Li, Nan |
author_facet | Song, Yufei Meng, Xiangxi Cao, Zhen Zhao, Wei Zhang, Yan Guo, Rui Zhou, Xin Yang, Zhi Li, Nan |
author_sort | Song, Yufei |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: EQ.PET is a software package that overcomes the reconstruction-dependent variation of standard uptake values (SUV). In this study, we validated the use of EQ.PET for harmonizing SUVs between different positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) systems and reconstruction algorithms. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 49 patients with various cancers were scanned on a Biograph mCT (mCT) or Gemini TF 16 (Gemini) after [(18)F]FDG injections. Three groups of patient data were collected: Group 1, patients scanned on mCT or Gemini with data reconstructed using two parameters; Group 2, patients scanned twice on different PET scanners (interval between two scans, 68.9 ± 41.4 days); and Group 3, patients scanned twice using mCT with data reconstructed using different algorithms (interval between two scans, 109.5 ± 60.6 days). The SUVs of the lesions and background were measured, and the tumor-to-background ratios (TBRs) were calculated. In addition, the consistency between the two reconstruction algorithms and confounding factors were evaluated. RESULTS: In Group 1, the consistency of SUV and TBR between different reconstruction algorithms improved when the EQ.PET filter was applied. In Group 2, by comparing ΔSUV, ΔSUV%, ΔTBR, and ΔTBR% with and without the EQ.PET, the results showed significant differences (P < 0.05). In Group 3, Bland–Altman analysis of ΔSUV with EQ.PET showed an improved consistency relative to that without EQ.PET. CONCLUSIONS: EQ.PET is an efficient tool to harmonize SUVs and TBRs across different reconstruction algorithms. Patients could benefit from the harmonized SUV, ΔSUV, and ΔSUV% for therapy responses and follow-up evaluations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40658-023-00540-z. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10017904 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100179042023-03-17 Harmonization of standard uptake values across different positron emission tomography/computed tomography systems and different reconstruction algorithms: validation in oncology patients Song, Yufei Meng, Xiangxi Cao, Zhen Zhao, Wei Zhang, Yan Guo, Rui Zhou, Xin Yang, Zhi Li, Nan EJNMMI Phys Original Research BACKGROUND: EQ.PET is a software package that overcomes the reconstruction-dependent variation of standard uptake values (SUV). In this study, we validated the use of EQ.PET for harmonizing SUVs between different positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) systems and reconstruction algorithms. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 49 patients with various cancers were scanned on a Biograph mCT (mCT) or Gemini TF 16 (Gemini) after [(18)F]FDG injections. Three groups of patient data were collected: Group 1, patients scanned on mCT or Gemini with data reconstructed using two parameters; Group 2, patients scanned twice on different PET scanners (interval between two scans, 68.9 ± 41.4 days); and Group 3, patients scanned twice using mCT with data reconstructed using different algorithms (interval between two scans, 109.5 ± 60.6 days). The SUVs of the lesions and background were measured, and the tumor-to-background ratios (TBRs) were calculated. In addition, the consistency between the two reconstruction algorithms and confounding factors were evaluated. RESULTS: In Group 1, the consistency of SUV and TBR between different reconstruction algorithms improved when the EQ.PET filter was applied. In Group 2, by comparing ΔSUV, ΔSUV%, ΔTBR, and ΔTBR% with and without the EQ.PET, the results showed significant differences (P < 0.05). In Group 3, Bland–Altman analysis of ΔSUV with EQ.PET showed an improved consistency relative to that without EQ.PET. CONCLUSIONS: EQ.PET is an efficient tool to harmonize SUVs and TBRs across different reconstruction algorithms. Patients could benefit from the harmonized SUV, ΔSUV, and ΔSUV% for therapy responses and follow-up evaluations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40658-023-00540-z. Springer International Publishing 2023-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10017904/ /pubmed/36920590 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40658-023-00540-z Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Song, Yufei Meng, Xiangxi Cao, Zhen Zhao, Wei Zhang, Yan Guo, Rui Zhou, Xin Yang, Zhi Li, Nan Harmonization of standard uptake values across different positron emission tomography/computed tomography systems and different reconstruction algorithms: validation in oncology patients |
title | Harmonization of standard uptake values across different positron emission tomography/computed tomography systems and different reconstruction algorithms: validation in oncology patients |
title_full | Harmonization of standard uptake values across different positron emission tomography/computed tomography systems and different reconstruction algorithms: validation in oncology patients |
title_fullStr | Harmonization of standard uptake values across different positron emission tomography/computed tomography systems and different reconstruction algorithms: validation in oncology patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Harmonization of standard uptake values across different positron emission tomography/computed tomography systems and different reconstruction algorithms: validation in oncology patients |
title_short | Harmonization of standard uptake values across different positron emission tomography/computed tomography systems and different reconstruction algorithms: validation in oncology patients |
title_sort | harmonization of standard uptake values across different positron emission tomography/computed tomography systems and different reconstruction algorithms: validation in oncology patients |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10017904/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36920590 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40658-023-00540-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT songyufei harmonizationofstandarduptakevaluesacrossdifferentpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomographysystemsanddifferentreconstructionalgorithmsvalidationinoncologypatients AT mengxiangxi harmonizationofstandarduptakevaluesacrossdifferentpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomographysystemsanddifferentreconstructionalgorithmsvalidationinoncologypatients AT caozhen harmonizationofstandarduptakevaluesacrossdifferentpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomographysystemsanddifferentreconstructionalgorithmsvalidationinoncologypatients AT zhaowei harmonizationofstandarduptakevaluesacrossdifferentpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomographysystemsanddifferentreconstructionalgorithmsvalidationinoncologypatients AT zhangyan harmonizationofstandarduptakevaluesacrossdifferentpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomographysystemsanddifferentreconstructionalgorithmsvalidationinoncologypatients AT guorui harmonizationofstandarduptakevaluesacrossdifferentpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomographysystemsanddifferentreconstructionalgorithmsvalidationinoncologypatients AT zhouxin harmonizationofstandarduptakevaluesacrossdifferentpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomographysystemsanddifferentreconstructionalgorithmsvalidationinoncologypatients AT yangzhi harmonizationofstandarduptakevaluesacrossdifferentpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomographysystemsanddifferentreconstructionalgorithmsvalidationinoncologypatients AT linan harmonizationofstandarduptakevaluesacrossdifferentpositronemissiontomographycomputedtomographysystemsanddifferentreconstructionalgorithmsvalidationinoncologypatients |