Cargando…

Positron emission tomography PET/CT harmonisation study of different clinical PET/CT scanners using commercially available software

OBJECTIVES: Harmonisation is the process whereby standardised uptake values from different scanners can be made comparable. This PET/CT pilot study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of harmonisation of a modern scanner with image reconstruction incorporating resolution recovery (RR) with another v...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lowe, Gerry, Spottiswoode, Bruce, Declerck, Jerome, Sullivan, Keith, Sharif, Mhd Saeed, Wong, Wai-Lup, Sanghera, Bal
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The British Institute of Radiology. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7594895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33178963
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20190035
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: Harmonisation is the process whereby standardised uptake values from different scanners can be made comparable. This PET/CT pilot study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of harmonisation of a modern scanner with image reconstruction incorporating resolution recovery (RR) with another vendor older scanner operated in two-dimensional (2D) mode, and for both against a European standard (EARL). The vendor-proprietary software EQ•PET was used, which achieves harmonisation with a Gaussian smoothing. A substudy investigated effect of RR on harmonisation. METHODS: Phantom studies on each scanner were performed to optimise the smoothing parameters required to achieve successful harmonisation. 80 patients were retrospectively selected; half were imaged on each scanner. As proof of principle, a cohort of 10 patients was selected from the modern scanner subjects to study the effects of RR on harmonisation. RESULTS: Before harmonisation, the modern scanner without RR adhered to EARL specification. Using the phantom data, filters were derived for optimal harmonisation between scanners and with and without RR as applicable, to the EARL standard. The 80-patient cohort did not reveal any statistically significant differences. In the 10-patient cohort SUVmax for RR > no RR irrespective of harmonisation but differences lacked statistical significance (one-way ANOVA F(3.36) = 0.37, p = 0.78). Bland-Altman analysis showed that harmonisation reduced the SUVmax ratio between RR and no RR to 1.07 (95% CI 0.96–1.18) with no outliers. CONCLUSIONS: EQ•PET successfully enabled harmonisation between modern and older scanners and against the EARL standard. Harmonisation reduces SUVmax and dependence on the use of RR in the modern scanner. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: EQ•PET is feasible to harmonise different PET/CT scanners and reduces the effect of RR on SUVmax.