Literature DB >> 24144448

Influences of point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstructions on standardized uptake value of lymph node metastases in FDG-PET.

Go Akamatsu1, Katsuhiko Mitsumoto2, Takafumi Taniguchi3, Yuji Tsutsui4, Shingo Baba5, Masayuki Sasaki6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of point-spread function (PSF) and time-of-flight (TOF) on the standardized uptake value (SUV) of lymph node metastasis in FDG-PET/CT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluated 41 lymph node metastases in 15 patients who had undergone (18)F-FDG PET/CT. The lesion diameters were 2.5 cm or less. The mean short-axis diameter of the lymph nodes was 10.5 ± 3.7 mm (range 4.6-22.8mm). The PET data were reconstructed with baseline OSEM algorithm, with OSEM+PSF, with OSEM+TOF and with OSEM+PSF+TOF. A semi-quantitative analysis was performed using the maximum and mean SUV of lymph node metastases (SUVmax and SUVmean) and mean SUV of normal lung tissue (SUVlung). We also evaluated image quality using the signal-to-noise ratio in the liver (SNRliver).
RESULTS: Both PSF and TOF increased the SUV of lymph node metastases. The combination of PSF and TOF increased the SUVmax by 43.3% and the SUVmean by 31.6% compared with conventional OSEM. By contrast, the SUVlung was not influenced by PSF and TOF. TOF significantly improved the SNRliver.
CONCLUSION: PSF and TOF both increased the SUV of lymph node metastases. Although PSF and TOF are considered to improve small-lesion detectability, it is important to be aware that PSF and TOF influence the accuracy of quantitative measurements.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FDG-PET; Lymph node metastasis; Point-spread function; Standardized uptake value; Time-of-flight

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24144448     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.09.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  26 in total

1.  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

2.  Metabolic Tumor Volume in Lymphoma: Hype or Hope?

Authors:  Heiko Schöder; Craig Moskowitz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Verification of the tumor volume delineation method using a fixed threshold of peak standardized uptake value.

Authors:  Kazuya Koyama; Takuya Mitsumoto; Takahiro Shiraishi; Keisuke Tsuda; Atsushi Nishiyama; Kazumasa Inoue; Kyosan Yoshikawa; Kazuo Hatano; Kazuo Kubota; Masahiro Fukushi
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2017-07-04

4.  New standards for phantom image quality and SUV harmonization range for multicenter oncology PET studies.

Authors:  Go Akamatsu; Naoki Shimada; Keiichi Matsumoto; Hiromitsu Daisaki; Kazufumi Suzuki; Hiroshi Watabe; Keiichi Oda; Michio Senda; Takashi Terauchi; Ukihide Tateishi
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 2.668

5.  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

6.  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

Review 7.  Evidence-based management of incidental focal uptake of fluorodeoxyglucose on PET-CT.

Authors:  Deborah Pencharz; Malavika Nathan; Thomas L Wagner
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Quantitative differences in [(18)F] NaF PET/CT: TOF versus non-TOF measurements.

Authors:  Jorge D Oldan; Timothy G Turkington; Kingshuk Choudhury; Bennett B Chin
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-10-12

Review 9.  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

10.  Impact of point-spread function reconstruction on dynamic and static 18F-DOPA PET/CT quantitative parameters in glioma.

Authors:  Antoine Girard; Madani François; Nibras Chaboub; Pierre-Jean Le Reste; Anne Devillers; Hervé Saint-Jalmes; Florence Le Jeune; Xavier Palard-Novello
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.