Literature DB >> 22899197

Impact of point spread function reconstruction on thoracic lymph node staging with 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer.

Charline Lasnon1, Rodney J Hicks, Jean-Mathieu Beauregard, Alvin Milner, Maria Paciencia, Anne-Valérie Guizard, Stéphane Bardet, Radj Gervais, Gabriel Lemoel, Gérard Zalcman, Nicolas Aide.   

Abstract

AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of point spread function (PSF) reconstruction on quantitative values and diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET/CT for nodal staging in non-small cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-eight consecutive PET/CT examinations were reconstructed with both ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) and PSF algorithms. Two readers independently performed a randomized blinded review of PET/CT examinations and gave a nodal status (N0, N1, N2, or N3) to each PET data set. When discordant, a consensus was reached with a third reader. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (NPV), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were assessed and compared using a McNemar test. All PET data sets were then independently analyzed to extract quantitative PET values in 208 nodes and compare them using Bland-Altman analysis.
RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis showed that, on average, PSF reconstruction increased SUVmax, SUVmean, and node/background ratios by 48%, 28%, and 27%, respectively. This increase was more marked for nodes less than 1 cm than for nodes 1 cm or greater (P < 0.0001 for SUVmax, SUVmean, and node/background ratios). Point spread function PET had higher sensitivity (97%) and NPV (92%) than OSEM PET (78% and 57%, respectively; P = 0.01 and P = 0.04, respectively). Negative LR was 0.04 for PSF PET and 0.31 for OSEM PET.
CONCLUSIONS: By improving activity recovery, especially for nonenlarged nodes, PSF significantly improves the sensitivity, NPV, and negative LR of FDG-PET for nodal staging in non-small cell lung cancer. These data suggest that preoperative invasive nodal staging may be omitted in the case of a negative PSF FDG-PET/CT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22899197     DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e318251e3d1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Nucl Med        ISSN: 0363-9762            Impact factor:   7.794


  28 in total

1.  Effects of point spread function-based image reconstruction on neuroreceptor binding in positron emission tomography study with [(11)C]FLB 457.

Authors:  Thonnapong Thongpraparn; Yoko Ikoma; Takahiro Shiraishi; Taiga Yamaya; Hiroshi Ito
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2015-12-16

2.  Staging the axilla in breast cancer patients with ¹⁸F-FDG PET: how small are the metastases that we can detect with new generation clinical PET systems?

Authors:  Dimitri Bellevre; Cécile Blanc Fournier; Odile Switsers; Audrey Emmanuelle Dugué; Christelle Levy; Djelila Allouache; Cédric Desmonts; Hubert Crouet; Jean-Marc Guilloit; Jean-Michel Grellard; Nicolas Aide
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-02-22       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Optimisation and harmonisation: two sides of the same coin?

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  The importance of harmonizing interim positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: focus on the Deauville criteria.

Authors:  Elske Quak; Narinée Hovhannisyan; Charline Lasnon; Christophe Fruchart; Jean-Pierre Vilque; Dada Musafiri; Nicolas Aide
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 9.941

5.  European Association of Nuclear Medicine Practice Guideline/Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Procedure Standard 2019 for radionuclide imaging of phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma.

Authors:  David Taïeb; Rodney J Hicks; Elif Hindié; Benjamin A Guillet; Anca Avram; Pietro Ghedini; Henri J Timmers; Aaron T Scott; Saeed Elojeimy; Domenico Rubello; Irène J Virgolini; Stefano Fanti; Sona Balogova; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Karel Pacak
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-06-29       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis.

Authors:  Georg Kuhnert; Ronald Boellaard; Sergej Sterzer; Deniz Kahraman; Matthias Scheffler; Jürgen Wolf; Markus Dietlein; Alexander Drzezga; Carsten Kobe
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  Clinical evaluation of (18)F-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT using point spread function reconstruction for nodal staging of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Kazuya Kawashima; Kenichi Kato; Makiko Tomabechi; Mikaru Matsuo; Koki Otsuka; Kazuyuki Ishida; Ryuji Nakamura; Shigeru Ehara
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Dual time point imaging for F18-FDG-PET/CT does not improve the accuracy of nodal staging in non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Authors:  Julian M M Rogasch; Ingo G Steffen; Sandra Riedel; Ivayla Apostolova; Heinz Wertzel; H Jost Achenbach; Ferdinand L G A Steinkrüger; Thomas Kalinski; Meinald Schultz; Jens Schreiber; Holger Amthauer; Christian Furth
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Authors:  Charline Lasnon; Cédric Desmonts; Elske Quak; Radj Gervais; Pascal Do; Catherine Dubos-Arvis; Nicolas Aide
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-04-06       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 10.  Pitfalls on PET/CT Due to Artifacts and Instrumentation.

Authors:  Yu-Jung Tsai; Chi Liu
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 4.446

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.