Literature DB >> 20428866

Time-of-flight PET/CT using low-activity protocols: potential implications for cancer therapy monitoring.

Iain Murray1, Antonis Kalemis, Joe Glennon, Syed Hasan, Shuaib Quraishi, Thomas Beyer, Norbert Avril.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Accurate quantification of tumour tracer uptake is essential for therapy monitoring by sequential PET imaging. In this study we investigated to what extent a reduction in administered activity, synonymous with an overall reduction in repeated patient exposure, compromised the accuracy of quantitative measures using time-of-flight PET/CT.
METHODS: We evaluated the effect of reducing the emission count statistics, using a 64-channel GEMINI TF PET/CT system. Experiments were performed with the NEMA IEC body phantom at target-to-background ratios of 4:1 and 10:1. Emission data for 10 s, 30 s, 1 min, 2 min, 5 min and 30 min were acquired. Volumes of interest fitted to the CT outline of the spheres were used to calculate recovery coefficients for each target-to-background ratio and for different reconstruction algorithms. Whole-body time-of-flight PET/CT was performed in 20 patients 62+/-4 min after injection of 350+/-40 MBq (range 269-411 MBq) (18)F-FDG. From the acquired 2 min per bed position list mode data, simulated 1-min, 30-s and 15-s PET acquisitions were created. PET images were reconstructed using the TOF-OSEM algorithm and analysed for differences in SUV measurements resulting from the use of lower administered activity as simulated by reduced count statistics.
RESULTS: In the phantom studies, overall we identified no significant quantitation bias over a wide range of acquired counts. With acquisition times as short as 10 s, lesions as small as 1 cm in diameter could still be identified. In the patient studies, visual analysis showed that emission scans as short as 15 s per bed position sufficiently identified tumour lesions for quantification. As the acquisition time per bed position decreased, the differences in SUV quantification of tumour lesions increased relative to the 2-min reference protocol. However, SUVs remained within the limits of reproducibility required for therapy monitoring. Measurements of SUVmean within the region of interest were less prone to noise than SUVmax, and with the 30-s per bed position 95% confidence limits were +/-11% or +/-0.7 SUV.
CONCLUSION: Short time acquisitions, synonymous with reduced injected activity, performed on a TOF-based PET/CT system are feasible without encountering significant bias. This could translate into clinical protocols using lower administered activities particularly for serial PET studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20428866     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-010-1466-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  20 in total

1.  Statistical list-mode image reconstruction for the high resolution research tomograph.

Authors:  A Rahmim; M Lenox; A J Reader; C Michel; Z Burbar; T J Ruth; V Sossi
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2004-09-21       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 2.  Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006.

Authors:  Johannes Czernin; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Heinrich R Schelbert
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 3.  Monitoring cancer treatment with PET/CT: does it make a difference?

Authors:  Wolfgang A Weber; Robert Figlin
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 4.  Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-04-20       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Time-of-flight positron emission tomography: status relative to conventional PET.

Authors:  T F Budinger
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1983-01       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET.

Authors:  W A Weber; S I Ziegler; R Thödtmann; A R Hanauske; M Schwaiger
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 7.  Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET.

Authors:  Norbert E Avril; Wolfgang A Weber
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.303

8.  Comparison of different SUV-based methods for monitoring cytotoxic therapy with FDG PET.

Authors:  A Stahl; K Ott; M Schwaiger; W A Weber
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-07-15       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard; Nanda C Krak; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Single 20-second acquisition of deep-inspiration breath-hold PET/CT: clinical feasibility for lung cancer.

Authors:  Tatsuo Torizuka; Yasuo Tanizaki; Toshihiko Kanno; Masami Futatsubashi; Etsuji Yoshikawa; Hiroyuki Okada; Yasuomi Ouchi
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-09-16       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  17 in total

1.  The potential pitfalls of low-activity protocols in PET/CT imaging.

Authors:  Garry McDermott; Gareth Iball; Andrew Scarsbrook
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Performance Evaluation of a Newly Developed MR-Compatible Mobile PET Scanner with Two Detector Layouts.

Authors:  Masao Watanabe; Yuji Nakamoto; Ryusuke Nakamoto; Takayoshi Ishimori; Tsuneo Saga; Kaori Togashi
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 3.  Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution.

Authors:  Maurizio Conti
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 4.  Sequential whole-body PET/MR scanner: concept, clinical use, and optimisation after two years in the clinic. The manufacturer's perspective.

Authors:  Antonis Kalemis; Bénédicte M A Delattre; Susanne Heinzer
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 2.310

5.  Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value.

Authors:  Martin A Lodge; Muhammad A Chaudhry; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Two-crossed-polarizers based optical property modulation method for ionizing radiation detection for positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Yuli Wang; Yingjie Li; Fei Yi; Junyu Li; Siwei Xie; Qiyu Peng; Jianfeng Xu
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 7.  Instrumentation for Time-of-Flight Positron Emission Tomography.

Authors:  Muhammad Nasir Ullah; Eva Pratiwi; Jimin Cheon; Hojong Choi; Jung Yeol Yeom
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-02-22

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

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

9.  Quantitative and Qualitative Improvement of Low-Count [68Ga]Citrate and [90Y]Microspheres PET Image Reconstructions Using Block Sequential Regularized Expectation Maximization Algorithm.

Authors:  Youngho Seo; Mohammad Mehdi Khalighi; Kristen A Wangerin; Timothy W Deller; Yung-Hua Wang; Salma Jivan; Maureen P Kohi; Rahul Aggarwal; Robert R Flavell; Spencer C Behr; Michael J Evans
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 3.488

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.