Cargando…

Optimal gating compared to 3D and 4D PET reconstruction for characterization of lung tumours

PURPOSE: We investigated the added value of a new respiratory amplitude-based PET reconstruction method called optimal gating (OG) with the aim of providing accurate image quantification in lung cancer. METHODS: FDG-PET imaging was performed in 26 lung cancer patients during free breathing using a 2...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Elmpt, Wouter, Hamill, James, Jones, Judson, De Ruysscher, Dirk, Lambin, Philippe, Öllers, Michel
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070073/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21222120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1716-6
_version_ 1782201371322220544
author van Elmpt, Wouter
Hamill, James
Jones, Judson
De Ruysscher, Dirk
Lambin, Philippe
Öllers, Michel
author_facet van Elmpt, Wouter
Hamill, James
Jones, Judson
De Ruysscher, Dirk
Lambin, Philippe
Öllers, Michel
author_sort van Elmpt, Wouter
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: We investigated the added value of a new respiratory amplitude-based PET reconstruction method called optimal gating (OG) with the aim of providing accurate image quantification in lung cancer. METHODS: FDG-PET imaging was performed in 26 lung cancer patients during free breathing using a 24-min list-mode acquisition on a PET/CT scanner. The data were reconstructed using three methods: standard 3D PET, respiratory-correlated 4D PET using a phase-binning algorithm, and OG. These datasets were compared in terms of the maximum SUV (SUVmax) in the primary tumour (main endpoint), noise characteristics, and volumes using thresholded regions of SUV 2.5 and 40% of the SUVmax. RESULTS: SUVmax values from the 4D method (13.7 ± 5.6) and the OG method (14.1 ± 6.5) were higher (4.9 ± 4.8%, p < 0.001 and 6.9 ± 8.8%, p < 0.001, respectively) than that from the 3D method (13.1 ± 5.4). SUVmax did not differ between the 4D and OG methods (2.0 ± 8.4%, p = NS). Absolute and relative threshold volumes did not differ between methods, except for the 40% SUVmax volume in which the value from the 3D method was lower than that from the 4D method (−5.3 ± 7.1%, p = 0.007). The OG method exhibited less noise than the 4D method. Variations in volumes and SUVmax of up to 40% and 27%, respectively, of the individual gates of the 4D method were also observed. CONCLUSION: The maximum SUVs from the OG and 4D methods were comparable and significantly higher than that from the 3D method, yet the OG method was visibly less noisy than the 4D method. Based on the better quantification of the maximum and the less noisy appearance, we conclude that OG PET is a better alternative to both 3D PET, which suffers from breathing averaging, and the noisy images of a 4D PET.
format Text
id pubmed-3070073
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30700732011-05-02 Optimal gating compared to 3D and 4D PET reconstruction for characterization of lung tumours van Elmpt, Wouter Hamill, James Jones, Judson De Ruysscher, Dirk Lambin, Philippe Öllers, Michel Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Original Article PURPOSE: We investigated the added value of a new respiratory amplitude-based PET reconstruction method called optimal gating (OG) with the aim of providing accurate image quantification in lung cancer. METHODS: FDG-PET imaging was performed in 26 lung cancer patients during free breathing using a 24-min list-mode acquisition on a PET/CT scanner. The data were reconstructed using three methods: standard 3D PET, respiratory-correlated 4D PET using a phase-binning algorithm, and OG. These datasets were compared in terms of the maximum SUV (SUVmax) in the primary tumour (main endpoint), noise characteristics, and volumes using thresholded regions of SUV 2.5 and 40% of the SUVmax. RESULTS: SUVmax values from the 4D method (13.7 ± 5.6) and the OG method (14.1 ± 6.5) were higher (4.9 ± 4.8%, p < 0.001 and 6.9 ± 8.8%, p < 0.001, respectively) than that from the 3D method (13.1 ± 5.4). SUVmax did not differ between the 4D and OG methods (2.0 ± 8.4%, p = NS). Absolute and relative threshold volumes did not differ between methods, except for the 40% SUVmax volume in which the value from the 3D method was lower than that from the 4D method (−5.3 ± 7.1%, p = 0.007). The OG method exhibited less noise than the 4D method. Variations in volumes and SUVmax of up to 40% and 27%, respectively, of the individual gates of the 4D method were also observed. CONCLUSION: The maximum SUVs from the OG and 4D methods were comparable and significantly higher than that from the 3D method, yet the OG method was visibly less noisy than the 4D method. Based on the better quantification of the maximum and the less noisy appearance, we conclude that OG PET is a better alternative to both 3D PET, which suffers from breathing averaging, and the noisy images of a 4D PET. Springer-Verlag 2011-01-11 2011 /pmc/articles/PMC3070073/ /pubmed/21222120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1716-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2011 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
van Elmpt, Wouter
Hamill, James
Jones, Judson
De Ruysscher, Dirk
Lambin, Philippe
Öllers, Michel
Optimal gating compared to 3D and 4D PET reconstruction for characterization of lung tumours
title Optimal gating compared to 3D and 4D PET reconstruction for characterization of lung tumours
title_full Optimal gating compared to 3D and 4D PET reconstruction for characterization of lung tumours
title_fullStr Optimal gating compared to 3D and 4D PET reconstruction for characterization of lung tumours
title_full_unstemmed Optimal gating compared to 3D and 4D PET reconstruction for characterization of lung tumours
title_short Optimal gating compared to 3D and 4D PET reconstruction for characterization of lung tumours
title_sort optimal gating compared to 3d and 4d pet reconstruction for characterization of lung tumours
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070073/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21222120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1716-6
work_keys_str_mv AT vanelmptwouter optimalgatingcomparedto3dand4dpetreconstructionforcharacterizationoflungtumours
AT hamilljames optimalgatingcomparedto3dand4dpetreconstructionforcharacterizationoflungtumours
AT jonesjudson optimalgatingcomparedto3dand4dpetreconstructionforcharacterizationoflungtumours
AT deruysscherdirk optimalgatingcomparedto3dand4dpetreconstructionforcharacterizationoflungtumours
AT lambinphilippe optimalgatingcomparedto3dand4dpetreconstructionforcharacterizationoflungtumours
AT ollersmichel optimalgatingcomparedto3dand4dpetreconstructionforcharacterizationoflungtumours