Cargando…
Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients
PURPOSE: Point-spread function (PSF) or PSF + time-of-flight (TOF) reconstruction may improve lesion detection in oncologic PET, but can alter quantitation resulting in variable standardized uptake values (SUVs) between different PET systems. This study aims to validate a proprietary software tool (...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4623085/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26219870 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0 |
_version_ | 1782397639778631680 |
---|---|
author | Quak, Elske Le Roux, Pierre-Yves Hofman, Michael S. Robin, Philippe Bourhis, David Callahan, Jason Binns, David Desmonts, Cédric Salaun, Pierre-Yves Hicks, Rodney J. Aide, Nicolas |
author_facet | Quak, Elske Le Roux, Pierre-Yves Hofman, Michael S. Robin, Philippe Bourhis, David Callahan, Jason Binns, David Desmonts, Cédric Salaun, Pierre-Yves Hicks, Rodney J. Aide, Nicolas |
author_sort | Quak, Elske |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Point-spread function (PSF) or PSF + time-of-flight (TOF) reconstruction may improve lesion detection in oncologic PET, but can alter quantitation resulting in variable standardized uptake values (SUVs) between different PET systems. This study aims to validate a proprietary software tool (EQ.PET) to harmonize SUVs across different PET systems independent of the reconstruction algorithm used. METHODS: NEMA NU2 phantom data were used to calculate the appropriate filter for each PSF or PSF+TOF reconstruction from three different PET systems, in order to obtain EANM compliant recovery coefficients. PET data from 517 oncology patients were reconstructed with a PSF or PSF+TOF reconstruction for optimal tumour detection and an ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM3D) reconstruction known to fulfil EANM guidelines. Post-reconstruction, the proprietary filter was applied to the PSF or PSF+TOF data (PSF(EQ) or PSF+TOF(EQ)). SUVs for PSF or PSF+TOF and PSF(EQ) or PSF+TOF(EQ) were compared to SUVs for the OSEM3D reconstruction. The impact of potential confounders on the EQ.PET methodology including lesion and patient characteristics was studied, as was the adherence to imaging guidelines. RESULTS: For the 1380 tumour lesions studied, Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean ratio between PSF or PSF+TOF and OSEM3D of 1.46 (95 %CI: 0.86–2.06) and 1.23 (95 %CI: 0.95–1.51) for SUV(max) and SUV(peak), respectively. Application of the proprietary filter improved these ratios to 1.02 (95 %CI: 0.88–1.16) and 1.04 (95 %CI: 0.92–1.17) for SUV(max) and SUV(peak), respectively. The influence of the different confounding factors studied (lesion size, location, radial offset and patient’s BMI) was less than 5 %. Adherence to the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) guidelines for tumour imaging was good. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that it is not necessary to sacrifice the superior lesion detection and image quality achieved by newer reconstruction techniques in the quest for harmonizing quantitative comparability between PET systems. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4623085 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46230852015-10-30 Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients Quak, Elske Le Roux, Pierre-Yves Hofman, Michael S. Robin, Philippe Bourhis, David Callahan, Jason Binns, David Desmonts, Cédric Salaun, Pierre-Yves Hicks, Rodney J. Aide, Nicolas Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Original Article PURPOSE: Point-spread function (PSF) or PSF + time-of-flight (TOF) reconstruction may improve lesion detection in oncologic PET, but can alter quantitation resulting in variable standardized uptake values (SUVs) between different PET systems. This study aims to validate a proprietary software tool (EQ.PET) to harmonize SUVs across different PET systems independent of the reconstruction algorithm used. METHODS: NEMA NU2 phantom data were used to calculate the appropriate filter for each PSF or PSF+TOF reconstruction from three different PET systems, in order to obtain EANM compliant recovery coefficients. PET data from 517 oncology patients were reconstructed with a PSF or PSF+TOF reconstruction for optimal tumour detection and an ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM3D) reconstruction known to fulfil EANM guidelines. Post-reconstruction, the proprietary filter was applied to the PSF or PSF+TOF data (PSF(EQ) or PSF+TOF(EQ)). SUVs for PSF or PSF+TOF and PSF(EQ) or PSF+TOF(EQ) were compared to SUVs for the OSEM3D reconstruction. The impact of potential confounders on the EQ.PET methodology including lesion and patient characteristics was studied, as was the adherence to imaging guidelines. RESULTS: For the 1380 tumour lesions studied, Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean ratio between PSF or PSF+TOF and OSEM3D of 1.46 (95 %CI: 0.86–2.06) and 1.23 (95 %CI: 0.95–1.51) for SUV(max) and SUV(peak), respectively. Application of the proprietary filter improved these ratios to 1.02 (95 %CI: 0.88–1.16) and 1.04 (95 %CI: 0.92–1.17) for SUV(max) and SUV(peak), respectively. The influence of the different confounding factors studied (lesion size, location, radial offset and patient’s BMI) was less than 5 %. Adherence to the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) guidelines for tumour imaging was good. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that it is not necessary to sacrifice the superior lesion detection and image quality achieved by newer reconstruction techniques in the quest for harmonizing quantitative comparability between PET systems. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015-07-30 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4623085/ /pubmed/26219870 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Quak, Elske Le Roux, Pierre-Yves Hofman, Michael S. Robin, Philippe Bourhis, David Callahan, Jason Binns, David Desmonts, Cédric Salaun, Pierre-Yves Hicks, Rodney J. Aide, Nicolas Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients |
title | Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients |
title_full | Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients |
title_fullStr | Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients |
title_short | Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients |
title_sort | harmonizing fdg pet quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4623085/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26219870 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT quakelske harmonizingfdgpetquantificationwhilemaintainingoptimallesiondetectionprospectivemulticentrevalidationin517oncologypatients AT lerouxpierreyves harmonizingfdgpetquantificationwhilemaintainingoptimallesiondetectionprospectivemulticentrevalidationin517oncologypatients AT hofmanmichaels harmonizingfdgpetquantificationwhilemaintainingoptimallesiondetectionprospectivemulticentrevalidationin517oncologypatients AT robinphilippe harmonizingfdgpetquantificationwhilemaintainingoptimallesiondetectionprospectivemulticentrevalidationin517oncologypatients AT bourhisdavid harmonizingfdgpetquantificationwhilemaintainingoptimallesiondetectionprospectivemulticentrevalidationin517oncologypatients AT callahanjason harmonizingfdgpetquantificationwhilemaintainingoptimallesiondetectionprospectivemulticentrevalidationin517oncologypatients AT binnsdavid harmonizingfdgpetquantificationwhilemaintainingoptimallesiondetectionprospectivemulticentrevalidationin517oncologypatients AT desmontscedric harmonizingfdgpetquantificationwhilemaintainingoptimallesiondetectionprospectivemulticentrevalidationin517oncologypatients AT salaunpierreyves harmonizingfdgpetquantificationwhilemaintainingoptimallesiondetectionprospectivemulticentrevalidationin517oncologypatients AT hicksrodneyj harmonizingfdgpetquantificationwhilemaintainingoptimallesiondetectionprospectivemulticentrevalidationin517oncologypatients AT aidenicolas harmonizingfdgpetquantificationwhilemaintainingoptimallesiondetectionprospectivemulticentrevalidationin517oncologypatients |