INTRODUCTION: Several studies have shown the usefulness of positron emission tomography (PET) quantification using standardised uptake values (SUV) for diagnosis and staging, prognosis and response monitoring. Many factors affect SUV, such as patient preparation procedures, scan acquisition, image reconstruction and data analysis settings, and the variability in methodology across centres prohibits exchange of SUV data. Therefore, standardisation of 2-[(18)F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET whole body procedures is required in multi-centre trials. METHODS: A protocol for standardisation of quantitative FDG whole body PET studies in the Netherlands (NL) was defined. This protocol is based on standardisation of: (1) patient preparation; (2) matching of scan statistics by prescribing dosage as function of patient weight, scan time per bed position, percentage of bed overlap and image acquisition mode (2D or 3D); (3) matching of image resolution by prescribing reconstruction settings for each type of scanner; (4) matching of data analysis procedure by defining volume of interest methods and SUV calculations and; (5) finally, a multi-centre QC procedure is defined using a 20-cm diameter phantom for verification of scanner calibration and the NEMA NU 2 2001 Image Quality phantom for verification of activity concentration recoveries (i.e., verification of image resolution and reconstruction convergence). DISCUSSION: This paper describes a protocol for standardization of quantitative FDG whole body multi-centre PET studies. CONCLUSION: The protocol was successfully implemented in the Netherlands and has been approved by the Netherlands Society of Nuclear Medicine.
INTRODUCTION: Several studies have shown the usefulness of positron emission tomography (PET) quantification using standardised uptake values (SUV) for diagnosis and staging, prognosis and response monitoring. Many factors affect SUV, such as patient preparation procedures, scan acquisition, image reconstruction and data analysis settings, and the variability in methodology across centres prohibits exchange of SUV data. Therefore, standardisation of 2-[(18)F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET whole body procedures is required in multi-centre trials. METHODS: A protocol for standardisation of quantitative FDG whole body PET studies in the Netherlands (NL) was defined. This protocol is based on standardisation of: (1) patient preparation; (2) matching of scan statistics by prescribing dosage as function of patient weight, scan time per bed position, percentage of bed overlap and image acquisition mode (2D or 3D); (3) matching of image resolution by prescribing reconstruction settings for each type of scanner; (4) matching of data analysis procedure by defining volume of interest methods and SUV calculations and; (5) finally, a multi-centre QC procedure is defined using a 20-cm diameter phantom for verification of scanner calibration and the NEMA NU 2 2001 Image Quality phantom for verification of activity concentration recoveries (i.e., verification of image resolution and reconstruction convergence). DISCUSSION: This paper describes a protocol for standardization of quantitative FDG whole body multi-centre PET studies. CONCLUSION: The protocol was successfully implemented in the Netherlands and has been approved by the Netherlands Society of Nuclear Medicine.
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: Alireza Ahmadian; Mohammad R Ay; Javad H Bidgoli; Saeed Sarkar; Habib Zaidi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-04-17 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Quinten C Black; Inga S Grills; Larry L Kestin; Ching-Yee O Wong; John W Wong; Alvaro A Martinez; Di Yan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: P Giraud; D Grahek; F Montravers; M F Carette; E Deniaud-Alexandre; F Julia; J C Rosenwald; J M Cosset; J N Talbot; M Housset; E Touboul Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: John Caddell Dickson; Livia Tossici-Bolt; Terez Sera; Robin de Nijs; Jan Booij; Maria Claudia Bagnara; Anita Seese; Pierre Malick Koulibaly; Umit Ozgur Akdemir; Cathrine Jonsson; Michel Koole; Maria Raith; Markus Nowak Lonsdale; Jean George; Felicia Zito; Klaus Tatsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Frederic H Fahey; Paul E Kinahan; Robert K Doot; Mehmet Kocak; Harold Thurston; Tina Young Poussaint Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Begoña Caballero Perea; Antonio Cabrera Villegas; José Miguel Delgado Rodríguez; María José García Velloso; Ana María García Vicente; Carlos Huerga Cabrerizo; Rosa Morera López; Luis Alberto Pérez Romasanta; Moisés Sáez Beltrán Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2012-11-17
Authors: Axel Wetter; Christine Lipponer; Felix Nensa; Philipp Heusch; Herbert Rübben; Jens-Christian Altenbernd; Thomas Schlosser; Andreas Bockisch; Thorsten Pöppel; Thomas Lauenstein; James Nagarajah Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Sara Carvalho; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Cary Oberije; Chintan Parmar; Wouter van Elmpt; Bart Reymen; Esther G C Troost; Michel Oellers; Andre Dekker; Robert Gillies; Hugo J W L Aerts; Philippe Lambin Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 4.089