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 (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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