PURPOSE: If the CT scan of a combined PET/CT study is performed as a full diagnostic quality CT scan including intravenous (IV) contrast agent, the quality of the joint PET/CT procedure is improved and a separate diagnostic CT scan can be avoided. CT with IV contrast can be used for PET attenuation correction, but this may result in a bias in the attenuation factors. The clinical significance of this bias has not been established. Our aim was to perform a prospective clinical study where each patient had CT performed with and without IV contrast agent to establish whether PET/CT with IV contrast can be used for PET attenuation without reducing the clinical value of the PET scan. METHODS: A uniform phantom study was used to document that the PET acquisition itself is not significantly influenced by the presence of IV contrast medium. Then, 19 patients referred to PET/CT with IV contrast underwent CT scans without, and then with contrast agent, followed by an 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose whole-body PET scan. The CT examinations were performed with identical parameters on a GE Discovery LS scanner. The PET data were reconstructed with attenuation correction based on the two CT data sets. A global comparison of standard uptake value (SUV) was performed, and SUVs in tumour, in non-tumour tissue and in the subclavian vein were calculated. Clinical evaluation of the number and location of lesions on all PET/CT scans was performed twice, blinded and in a different random order, by two independent nuclear medicine specialists. RESULTS: In all patients, the measured global SUV of PET images based on CT with IV contrast agent was higher than the global activity using non-contrast correction. The overall increase in the mean SUV (for two different conversion tables tested) was 4.5+/-2.3% and 1.6+/-0.5%, respectively. In 11/19 patients, focal uptake was identified corresponding to malignant tumours. Eight out of 11 tumours showed an increased SUVmax (2.9+/-3.1%) on the PET images reconstructed using IV contrast. The clinical evaluation performed by the two specialists comparing contrast and non-contrast CT attenuated PET images showed weighted kappa values of 0.92 (doctor A) and 0.82 (doctor B). No contrast-introduced artefacts were found. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that CT scans with IV contrast agent can be used for attenuation correction of the PET data in combined modality PET/CT scanning, without changing the clinical diagnostic interpretation.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: If the CT scan of a combined PET/CT study is performed as a full diagnostic quality CT scan including intravenous (IV) contrast agent, the quality of the joint PET/CT procedure is improved and a separate diagnostic CT scan can be avoided. CT with IV contrast can be used for PET attenuation correction, but this may result in a bias in the attenuation factors. The clinical significance of this bias has not been established. Our aim was to perform a prospective clinical study where each patient had CT performed with and without IV contrast agent to establish whether PET/CT with IV contrast can be used for PET attenuation without reducing the clinical value of the PET scan. METHODS: A uniform phantom study was used to document that the PET acquisition itself is not significantly influenced by the presence of IV contrast medium. Then, 19 patients referred to PET/CT with IV contrast underwent CT scans without, and then with contrast agent, followed by an 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose whole-body PET scan. The CT examinations were performed with identical parameters on a GE Discovery LS scanner. The PET data were reconstructed with attenuation correction based on the two CT data sets. A global comparison of standard uptake value (SUV) was performed, and SUVs in tumour, in non-tumour tissue and in the subclavian vein were calculated. Clinical evaluation of the number and location of lesions on all PET/CT scans was performed twice, blinded and in a different random order, by two independent nuclear medicine specialists. RESULTS: In all patients, the measured global SUV of PET images based on CT with IV contrast agent was higher than the global activity using non-contrast correction. The overall increase in the mean SUV (for two different conversion tables tested) was 4.5+/-2.3% and 1.6+/-0.5%, respectively. In 11/19 patients, focal uptake was identified corresponding to malignant tumours. Eight out of 11 tumours showed an increased SUVmax (2.9+/-3.1%) on the PET images reconstructed using IV contrast. The clinical evaluation performed by the two specialists comparing contrast and non-contrast CT attenuated PET images showed weighted kappa values of 0.92 (doctor A) and 0.82 (doctor B). No contrast-introduced artefacts were found. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that CT scans with IV contrast agent can be used for attenuation correction of the PET data in combined modality PET/CT scanning, without changing the clinical diagnostic interpretation.
Authors: Christian Cohade; Medhat Osman; Yuji Nakamoto; Laura T Marshall; Jonathan M Links; Elliot K Fishman; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gerald Antoch; Lutz S Freudenberg; Joerg Stattaus; Walter Jentzen; Stefan P Mueller; Joerg F Debatin; Andreas Bockisch Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Gerald Antoch; Lutz S Freudenberg; Thomas Egelhof; Jörg Stattaus; Walter Jentzen; Jörg F Debatin; Andreas Bockisch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ehab Kamel; Thomas F Hany; Cyrill Burger; Valerie Treyer; Albert H R Lonn; Gustav K von Schulthess; Alfred Buck Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Thomas Beyer; Gerald Antoch; Stefan Müller; Thomas Egelhof; Lutz S Freudenberg; Jörg Debatin; Andreas Bockisch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Didier Lardinois; Walter Weder; Thomas F Hany; Ehab M Kamel; Stephan Korom; Burkhardt Seifert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Hans C Steinert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Burger; G Goerres; S Schoenes; A Buck; A H R Lonn; G K Von Schulthess Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-04-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Florian F Behrendt; Yavuz Temur; Frederik A Verburg; Moritz Palmowski; Thomas Krohn; Hubertus Pietsch; Christiane K Kuhl; Felix M Mottaghy Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Philip Aschoff; Christian Plathow; Thomas Beyer; Matthias P Lichy; Gunter Erb; Mehmet Ö Öksüz; Claus D Claussen; Christina Pfannenberg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-11-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: V Schulz; I Torres-Espallardo; S Renisch; Z Hu; N Ojha; P Börnert; M Perkuhn; T Niendorf; W M Schäfer; H Brockmann; T Krohn; A Buhl; R W Günther; F M Mottaghy; G A Krombach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sally F Barrington; Wendi Qian; Edward J Somer; Antonella Franceschetto; Bruno Bagni; Eva Brun; Helén Almquist; Annika Loft; Liselotte Højgaard; Massimo Federico; Andrea Gallamini; Paul Smith; Peter Johnson; John Radford; Michael J O'Doherty Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-05-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: G Mangili; M Picchio; S Sironi; R Viganò; E Rabaiotti; D Bornaghi; V Bettinardi; C Crivellaro; C Messa; F Fazio Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-12-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Felix M Mottaghy; Cord Sunderkötter; Roland Schubert; Petra Wohlfart; Norbert M Blumstein; Bernd Neumaier; Gerhard Glatting; Cueneyt Ozdemir; Andreas K Buck; Karin Scharffetter-Kochanek; Sven N Reske Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-02-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Tira Bunyaviroch; Timothy G Turkington; Terence Z Wong; John W Wilson; James G Colsher; R Edward Coleman Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: A Orlacchio; O Schillaci; N Fusco; P Broccoli; M Maurici; M Yamgoue; R Danieli; S D'Urso; G Simonetti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 3.469