Abdel K Tahari1, Richard L Wahl. 1. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Tertiary care institutions often deal with patients who have had a baseline positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scan performed elsewhere. Little data exist regarding the quality of these PET/CT scans and whether they are fully suitable for qualitative or quantitative interpretation. We evaluated outside PET/CT scans from cancer patients referred to our institution and compared them with PET/CT scans acquired locally. METHODS: This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board. Informed consent requirements were waived. One hundred seventy recent whole-body outside PET/CT exams from many sites were digitally imported into our radiology imaging system and reviewed for key quality metrics including time from injection until imaging, availability of patient height and weight information, serum glucose level and [(18) F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) dose. The standardised uptake value (SUV) and SUV based on lean body mass (SUL) in the liver were measured whenever possible. These were compared with 170 internal studies performed at our centre during the same period. RESULTS: Missing data were common in outside scans with height in 62%, weight 35%, uptake time 25%, FDG dose 28% and glucose levels in 64% of cases. In quantitatively evaluable cases, mean liver SUL, SUV, FDG dose and uptake time were much more variable in outside than in internal studies. CONCLUSION: Approximately one-third of the outside PET/CT studies submitted digitally for analysis lacked key information required to secure any quantitative imaging data. Only about a third of these studies had all necessary information available for accurate SUL determination and had acceptable quality that was comparable with locally acquired scans. This suggests that many of PET studies performed in the community cannot be relied upon to provide quantitative image data that can be applied in a different centre. Greater standardisation of oncologic PET/CT studies among different centres must still be pursued.
PURPOSE: Tertiary care institutions often deal with patients who have had a baseline positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scan performed elsewhere. Little data exist regarding the quality of these PET/CT scans and whether they are fully suitable for qualitative or quantitative interpretation. We evaluated outside PET/CT scans from cancerpatients referred to our institution and compared them with PET/CT scans acquired locally. METHODS: This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board. Informed consent requirements were waived. One hundred seventy recent whole-body outside PET/CT exams from many sites were digitally imported into our radiology imaging system and reviewed for key quality metrics including time from injection until imaging, availability of patient height and weight information, serum glucose level and [(18) F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) dose. The standardised uptake value (SUV) and SUV based on lean body mass (SUL) in the liver were measured whenever possible. These were compared with 170 internal studies performed at our centre during the same period. RESULTS: Missing data were common in outside scans with height in 62%, weight 35%, uptake time 25%, FDG dose 28% and glucose levels in 64% of cases. In quantitatively evaluable cases, mean liver SUL, SUV, FDG dose and uptake time were much more variable in outside than in internal studies. CONCLUSION: Approximately one-third of the outside PET/CT studies submitted digitally for analysis lacked key information required to secure any quantitative imaging data. Only about a third of these studies had all necessary information available for accurate SUL determination and had acceptable quality that was comparable with locally acquired scans. This suggests that many of PET studies performed in the community cannot be relied upon to provide quantitative image data that can be applied in a different centre. Greater standardisation of oncologic PET/CT studies among different centres must still be pursued.
Authors: Lalitha K Shankar; John M Hoffman; Steve Bacharach; Michael M Graham; Joel Karp; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Steven Larson; David A Mankoff; Barry A Siegel; Annick Van den Abbeele; Jeffrey Yap; Daniel Sullivan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.057
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
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Bernhard Schmidt; Bryan L Westerman; Hugh T Morgan; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Cynthia H McCollough; Andrew N Primak; Natalie Braun; James Kofler; Lifeng Yu; Jodie Christner Journal: Radiol Clin North Am Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Jason M Williams; Sudheer D Rani; Xia Li; Lori R Arlinghaus; Tzu-Cheng Lee; Lawrence R MacDonald; Savannah C Partridge; Hakmook Kang; Jennifer G Whisenant; Richard G Abramson; Hannah M Linden; Paul E Kinahan; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.071
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
Authors: Jörg van den Hoff; Alexandr Lougovski; Georg Schramm; Jens Maus; Liane Oehme; Jan Petr; Bettina Beuthien-Baumann; Jörg Kotzerke; Frank Hofheinz Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Frank Hofheinz; Jörg van den Hoff; Ingo G Steffen; Alexandr Lougovski; Kilian Ego; Holger Amthauer; Ivayla Apostolova Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Frank Hofheinz; Rebecca Bütof; Ivayla Apostolova; Klaus Zöphel; Ingo G Steffen; Holger Amthauer; Jörg Kotzerke; Michael Baumann; Jörg van den Hoff Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Peter Sawan; Karim Rebeiz; Heiko Schoder; Connie Batlevi; Alison Moskowitz; Gary A Ulaner; Mark Dunphy; Lorenzo Mannelli Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 1.817