PURPOSE: Breathing causes artefacts on PET/CT images. Cine CT has been used to reduce respiratory artefacts by acquiring multiple images during a single breathing cycle. The aim of this prospective study in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients was twofold. Firstly, we sought to compare the motion artefacts in PET/CT images attenuation-corrected with helical CT (HCT) and with averaged CT (ACT), which provides an average of cine CT images. Secondly, we wanted to evaluate the differences in maximum standardized uptake values (SUV(max)) between HCT and ACT. METHODS: Enrolled in the study were 80 patients with NSCLC. PET images attenuation-corrected with HCT (PET/HCT) and with ACT (PET/ACT) were obtained in all patients. Misregistration was evaluated by measurement of the curved photopenic area in the lower thorax of the PET images for all patients and direct measurement of misregistration for selected lesions. SUV(max) was measured separately at the primary tumours, regional lymph nodes, and background. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients with NSCLC were included. Significantly lower misregistrations were observed in PET/ACT images than in PET/HCT images (below-thoracic misregistration 0.25+/-0.58 cm vs. 1.17+/-1.17 cm, p<0.001; lesion misregistration 1.38+/-2.10 vs. 3.10+/-4.09, p=0.013). Significantly higher SUV(max) were noted in PET/ACT images than in PET/HCT images in the primary tumour (p<0.001) and regional lymph nodes (p<0.001). Compared with PET/HCT images, the magnitude of SUV(max) in PET/ACT images was higher by 0.35 for the main tumours and 0.34 for lymph nodes. CONCLUSION: Due to its significantly reduced misregistration, PET/ACT provided more reliable SUV(max) and may be useful in treatment planning and monitoring the therapeutic response in patients with NSCLC.
PURPOSE: Breathing causes artefacts on PET/CT images. Cine CT has been used to reduce respiratory artefacts by acquiring multiple images during a single breathing cycle. The aim of this prospective study in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients was twofold. Firstly, we sought to compare the motion artefacts in PET/CT images attenuation-corrected with helical CT (HCT) and with averaged CT (ACT), which provides an average of cine CT images. Secondly, we wanted to evaluate the differences in maximum standardized uptake values (SUV(max)) between HCT and ACT. METHODS: Enrolled in the study were 80 patients with NSCLC. PET images attenuation-corrected with HCT (PET/HCT) and with ACT (PET/ACT) were obtained in all patients. Misregistration was evaluated by measurement of the curved photopenic area in the lower thorax of the PET images for all patients and direct measurement of misregistration for selected lesions. SUV(max) was measured separately at the primary tumours, regional lymph nodes, and background. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients with NSCLC were included. Significantly lower misregistrations were observed in PET/ACT images than in PET/HCT images (below-thoracic misregistration 0.25+/-0.58 cm vs. 1.17+/-1.17 cm, p<0.001; lesion misregistration 1.38+/-2.10 vs. 3.10+/-4.09, p=0.013). Significantly higher SUV(max) were noted in PET/ACT images than in PET/HCT images in the primary tumour (p<0.001) and regional lymph nodes (p<0.001). Compared with PET/HCT images, the magnitude of SUV(max) in PET/ACT images was higher by 0.35 for the main tumours and 0.34 for lymph nodes. CONCLUSION: Due to its significantly reduced misregistration, PET/ACT provided more reliable SUV(max) and may be useful in treatment planning and monitoring the therapeutic response in patients with NSCLC.
Authors: Medhat M Osman; Christian Cohade; Yuji Nakamoto; Laura T Marshall; Jeff P Leal; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Tinsu Pan; Osama Mawlawi; Sadek A Nehmeh; Yusuf E Erdi; Dershan Luo; Hui H Liu; Richard Castillo; Radhe Mohan; Zhongxing Liao; H A Macapinlac Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: R M Pieterman; J W van Putten; J J Meuzelaar; E L Mooyaart; W Vaalburg; G H Koëter; V Fidler; J Pruim; H J Groen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-07-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael P Mac Manus; Rodney J Hicks; Jane P Matthews; Andrew Wirth; Danny Rischin; David L Ball Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2005-02-17 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Harm van Tinteren; Otto S Hoekstra; Egbert F Smit; Jan H A M van den Bergh; Ad J M Schreurs; Roland A L M Stallaert; Piet C M van Velthoven; Emile F I Comans; Fred W Diepenhorst; Paul Verboom; Johan C van Mourik; Pieter E Postmus; Maarten Boers; Gerrit J J Teule Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-04-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christian Cohade; Medhat Osman; Laura N T Marshall; Richard N T L Wahl Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Adam M Alessio; Steve Kohlmyer; Kelley Branch; Grace Chen; James Caldwell; Paul Kinahan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Kirk A Frey; Leslie E Quint; Randall K Ten Haken; James A Hayman; Marc Kessler; Indrin J Chetty; Daniel Normolle; Avraham Eisbruch; Theodore S Lawrence Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544