PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the reproducibility of semi-quantitative parameters obtained from two 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) studies using two different PET scanners. METHODS: Forty-five patients underwent FDG-PET examination with two different PET scanners on separate days. Two PET images with different attenuation correction method were generated in each patient, and three regions of interest (ROIs) were placed on the lung tumor and normal organs (mediastinum and liver) in each image. Mean and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVs), tumor-to-mediastinum and tumor-to-liver ratios (T/M and T/L), and the percentage difference in parameters between two PET images (% Diff.) were compared. RESULTS: All measured values except maximum SUV in the liver and tumor-related parameters (SUV in lung tumor, T/M, T/L) showed no significant difference between two PET images. CONCLUSION: The mean measured values showed high reproducibility and demonstrate that follow-up study or measurement of tumor response to anticancer drugs can be undertaken by FDG-PET examination without specifying the particular type of PET scanner.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the reproducibility of semi-quantitative parameters obtained from two 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) studies using two different PET scanners. METHODS: Forty-five patients underwent FDG-PET examination with two different PET scanners on separate days. Two PET images with different attenuation correction method were generated in each patient, and three regions of interest (ROIs) were placed on the lung tumor and normal organs (mediastinum and liver) in each image. Mean and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVs), tumor-to-mediastinum and tumor-to-liver ratios (T/M and T/L), and the percentage difference in parameters between two PET images (% Diff.) were compared. RESULTS: All measured values except maximum SUV in the liver and tumor-related parameters (SUV in lung tumor, T/M, T/L) showed no significant difference between two PET images. CONCLUSION: The mean measured values showed high reproducibility and demonstrate that follow-up study or measurement of tumor response to anticancer drugs can be undertaken by FDG-PET examination without specifying the particular type of PET scanner.
Authors: P G. Kluetz; C C. Meltzer; V L. Villemagne; P E. Kinahan; S Chander; M A. Martinelli; D W. Townsend Journal: Clin Positron Imaging Date: 2000-11
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: M Souvatzoglou; S I Ziegler; M J Martinez; R Busch; G Dzewas; M Schwaiger; F Bengel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-09-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Yuji Nakamoto; Medhat Osman; Christian Cohade; Laura T Marshall; Jonathan M Links; Steve Kohlmyer; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wolfgang A Weber; Constantine A Gatsonis; P David Mozley; Lucy G Hanna; Anthony F Shields; Denise R Aberle; Ramaswamy Govindan; Drew A Torigian; Joel S Karp; Jian Q Michael Yu; Rathan M Subramaniam; Robert A Halvorsen; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Robert L Harrison; Brian F Elston; Robert K Doot; Thomas K Lewellen; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Nancy A Obuchowski; Anthony P Reeves; Erich P Huang; Xiao-Feng Wang; Andrew J Buckler; Hyun J Grace Kim; Huiman X Barnhart; Edward F Jackson; Maryellen L Giger; Gene Pennello; Alicia Y Toledano; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Tatiyana V Apanasovich; Paul E Kinahan; Kyle J Myers; Dmitry B Goldgof; Daniel P Barboriak; Robert J Gillies; Lawrence H Schwartz; Daniel C Sullivan Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Oluwaseun A Odewole; Oyeladun A Oyenuga; Funmilayo Tade; Bital Savir-Baruch; Peter T Nieh; Viraj Master; Zhengjia Chen; Xiaojing Wang; Ashesh B Jani; Leah M Bellamy; Raghuveer K Halkar; Mark M Goodman; David M Schuster Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Paul E Kinahan; Eric S Perlman; John J Sunderland; Rathan Subramaniam; Scott D Wollenweber; Timothy G Turkington; Martin A Lodge; Ronald Boellaard; Nancy A Obuchowski; Richard L Wahl Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 11.105