Literature DB >> 22795929

Early experiences in establishing a regional quantitative imaging network for PET/CT clinical trials.

Robert K Doot1, Tove Thompson, Benjamin E Greer, Keith C Allberg, Hannah M Linden, David A Mankoff, Paul E Kinahan.   

Abstract

The Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA) is a Pacific Northwest regional network that enables patients from community cancer centers to participate in multicenter oncology clinical trials where patients can receive some trial-related procedures at their local center. Results of positron emission tomography (PET) scans performed at community cancer centers are not currently used in SCCA Network trials since clinical trials customarily accept results from only trial-accredited PET imaging centers located at academic and large hospitals. Oncologists would prefer the option of using standard clinical PET scans from Network sites in multicenter clinical trials to increase accrual of patients for whom additional travel requirements for imaging are a barrier to recruitment. In an effort to increase accrual of rural and other underserved populations to Network trials, researchers and clinicians at the University of Washington, SCCA and its Network are assessing the feasibility of using PET scans from all Network sites in their oncology clinical trials. A feasibility study is required because the reproducibility of multicenter PET measurements ranges from approximately 3% to 40% at national academic centers. Early experiences from both national and local PET phantom imaging trials are discussed, and next steps are proposed for including patient PET scans from the emerging regional quantitative imaging network in clinical trials. There are feasible methods to determine and characterize PET quantitation errors and improve data quality by either prospective scanner calibration or retrospective post hoc corrections. These methods should be developed and implemented in multicenter clinical trials employing quantitative PET imaging of patients.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22795929      PMCID: PMC3466345          DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2012.06.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 0730-725X            Impact factor:   2.546


  38 in total

1.  Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium.

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

2.  Instrumentation factors affecting variance and bias of quantifying tracer uptake with PET/CT.

Authors:  R K Doot; J S Scheuermann; P E Christian; J S Karp; P E Kinahan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.071

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

Review 5.  Progress and promise of FDG-PET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development.

Authors:  Gary J Kelloff; John M Hoffman; Bruce Johnson; Howard I Scher; Barry A Siegel; Edward Y Cheng; Bruce D Cheson; Joyce O'shaughnessy; Kathryn Z Guyton; David A Mankoff; Lalitha Shankar; Steven M Larson; Caroline C Sigman; Richard L Schilsky; Daniel C Sullivan
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-04-15       Impact factor: 12.531

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

7.  Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group.

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

8.  Variability of lesion detectability and standardized uptake value according to the acquisition procedure and reconstruction among five PET scanners.

Authors:  Yasuyuki Takahashi; Noboru Oriuchi; Hidenori Otake; Keigo Endo; Kenya Murase
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2008-08-01       Impact factor: 2.668

9.  Comparison between positron emission tomography using 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose, conventional imaging and computed tomography for staging of breast cancer.

Authors:  S Mahner; S Schirrmacher; W Brenner; L Jenicke; C R Habermann; N Avril; J Dose-Schwarz
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2008-03-19       Impact factor: 32.976

10.  Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography.

Authors:  Didier Lardinois; Walter Weder; Thomas F Hany; Ehab M Kamel; Stephan Korom; Burkhardt Seifert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Hans C Steinert
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-06-19       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  7 in total

1.  Longitudinal monitoring of reconstructed activity concentration on a clinical time-of-flight PET/CT scanner.

Authors:  Lawrence R MacDonald; Amy E Perkins; Chi-Hua Tung
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-11-23

Review 2.  Clinical utility of quantitative imaging.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Rathan M Subramaniam; Leon Lenchik
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 3.  Qualification of National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers for Quantitative PET/CT Imaging in Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Joshua S Scheuermann; Janet S Reddin; Adam Opanowski; Paul E Kinahan; Barry A Siegel; Lalitha K Shankar; Joel S Karp
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  Biases in Multicenter Longitudinal PET Standardized Uptake Value Measurements.

Authors:  Robert K Doot; Larry A Pierce; Darrin Byrd; Brian Elston; Keith C Allberg; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 4.243

Review 5.  Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development.

Authors:  Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Leon Lenchik; Rathan M Subramaniam
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Role of PET quantitation in the monitoring of cancer response to treatment: Review of approaches and human clinical trials.

Authors:  Robert K Doot; Elizabeth S McDonald; David A Mankoff
Journal:  Clin Transl Imaging       Date:  2014-08-01

7.  Evaluation of Cross-Calibrated 68Ge/68Ga Phantoms for Assessing PET/CT Measurement Bias in Oncology Imaging for Single- and Multicenter Trials.

Authors:  Darrin W Byrd; Robert K Doot; Keith C Allberg; Lawrence R MacDonald; Wendy A McDougald; Brian F Elston; Hannah M Linden; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2016-12
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.