Literature DB >> 19443586

Comparison of imaging protocols for 18F-FDG PET/CT in overweight patients: optimizing scan duration versus administered dose.

Yoko Masuda1, Chisato Kondo, Yuka Matsuo, Masataka Uetani, Kiyoko Kusakabe.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The quality of (18)F-FDG PET/CT images of overweight patients is often degraded. We evaluated the effect of optimizing injected dose or acquisition time on the quality of images of overweight patients using lutetium oxyorthosilicate PET/CT with high-performance detector electronics.
METHODS: We initially retrospectively measured radioactivity concentrations and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) in the liver relative to body weight for 80 patients who had undergone (18)F-FDG PET/CT according to our standard protocol (injected dose, 3.7 MBq/kg; acquisition time, 2 min/bed position). The patients were grouped (n = 20 per group) according to baseline body weight as G1 (<or=59 kg), G2 (60-69 kg), G3 (70-84 kg), and G4 (>or=85 kg). We compared the SNRs of G1 with those of G2, G3, and G4 and calculated the ratio squared as a factor to correct the acquisition parameters for overweight patients. We then prospectively enrolled 120 patients according to the same body weight criteria. We multiplied the correction factors to optimize injected doses or acquisition times and defined dose-adjusted groups (n = 20 per group) and time-adjusted groups (n = 20 per group). G2 dose was defined as 5.59 +/- 0.19 MBq/kg, G3 dose as 7.29 +/- 0.33 MBq/kg, and G4 dose as 8.88 +/- 0.43 MBq/kg. G2 time was defined as 3 min/bed position, G3 time as 4 min/bed position, and G4 time as 5 min/bed position.
RESULTS: Although liver activities did not significantly differ among G1 through G4 irrespective of patient weight, SNR progressively decreased as patient weight increased. The liver activities of G2 dose, G3 dose, and G4 dose were, respectively, 1.4-, 1.9-, and 2.5-fold higher than those of the baseline counterparts. Nevertheless, the increased liver activities of G2 dose, G3 dose, and G4 dose did not significantly affect SNR, compared with the baseline groups. In contrast, the SNR of G4 time was significantly higher than that of G4.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the quality of images acquired from heavier patients can be maintained only by scanning for longer periods. Increasing the dose per kilogram of body weight did not improve the quality of lutetium oxyorthosilicate PET/CT images.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19443586     DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.060590

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  24 in total

1.  Image quality and lesion detectability in low-dose pediatric 18F-FDG scans using total-body PET/CT.

Authors:  Yu-Mo Zhao; Ying-He Li; Tao Chen; Wei-Guang Zhang; Lin-Hao Wang; Jiatai Feng; Chenwei Li; Xu Zhang; Wei Fan; Ying-Ying Hu
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Detection of hepatic metastases using dual-time-point FDG PET/CT scans in patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Jeong Won Lee; Seok-Ki Kim; Sang Mi Lee; Seung Hwan Moon; Tae-Sung Kim
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.488

3.  [Imaging in smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. Past, present and future].

Authors:  M Bhutani; O Landgren
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  Low-dose radiation protocol using 3D mode in a BGO PET/CT.

Authors:  Solange A Nogueira; Renato Dimenstein; Marcelo L Cunha; Jairo Wagner; Marcelo B G Funari; Henrique M Lederman
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 5.  Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies.

Authors:  Dennis Vriens; Eric P Visser; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Wim J G Oyen
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-11-20       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Whole-body PET estimation from low count statistics using cycle-consistent generative adversarial networks.

Authors:  Yang Lei; Xue Dong; Tonghe Wang; Kristin Higgins; Tian Liu; Walter J Curran; Hui Mao; Jonathon A Nye; Xiaofeng Yang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Image quality and variability for routine diagnostic FDG-PET scans in a Japanese community hospital: current status and possibility of improvement.

Authors:  Keiji Shimizu; Seiichi Yamamoto; Keiichi Matsumoto; Megumu Hino; Michio Senda
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 2.374

8.  Acquisition time optimization of positron emission tomography studies by use of a regression function derived from torso cross-sections and noise-equivalent counts.

Authors:  Yoshiharu Kangai; Hideo Onishi
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2016-01-21

9.  FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard; Mike J O'Doherty; Wolfgang A Weber; Felix M Mottaghy; Markus N Lonsdale; Sigrid G Stroobants; Wim J G Oyen; Joerg Kotzerke; Otto S Hoekstra; Jan Pruim; Paul K Marsden; Klaus Tatsch; Corneline J Hoekstra; Eric P Visser; Bertjan Arends; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Josee M Zijlstra; Emile F I Comans; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Anne M Paans; Antoon T Willemsen; Thomas Beyer; Andreas Bockisch; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop; Dominique Delbeke; Richard P Baum; Arturo Chiti; Bernd J Krause
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 10.  Dosage optimization in positron emission tomography: state-of-the-art methods and future prospects.

Authors:  Nicolas A Karakatsanis; Eleni Fokou; Charalampos Tsoumpas
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-10-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.