P B Shyn1, S Tatli2, V A Sahni2, C A Sadow2, K Forgione2, G Mauri2, P R Morrison2, P J Catalano3, S G Silverman2. 1. Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: pshyn@partners.org. 2. Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To determine whether a single 20 s breath-hold positron-emission tomography (PET) acquisition obtained during combined PET/computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous liver biopsy or ablation procedures has the potential to target 2-[(18)F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG)-avid liver masses as accurately as up to 180 s breath-hold PET acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 10 adult patients with 13 liver masses who underwent FDG PET/CT-guided percutaneous biopsies (n = 5) or ablations (n = 5). PET was acquired as nine sequential 20 s, monitored, same-level breath-hold frames and CT was acquired in one monitored breath-hold. Twenty, 40, 60, and 180 s PET datasets were reconstructed. Two blinded readers marked tumour centres on randomized PET and CT datasets. Three-dimensional spatial localization differences between PET datasets and either 180 s PET or CT were analysed using multiple regression analyses. Statistical tests were two-sided and p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Targeting differences between 20 s PET and 180 s PET ranged from 0.7-20.3 mm (mean 5.3 ± 4.4 mm; median 4.3) and were not statistically different from 40 or 60 s PET (p = 0.74 and 0.91, respectively). Targeting differences between 20 s PET and CT ranged from 1.4-36 mm (mean 9.6 ± 7.1 mm; median 8.2 mm) and were not statistically different from 40, 60, or 180 s PET (p = 0.84, 0.77, and 0.35, respectively). CONCLUSION: Single 20 s breath-hold PET acquisitions from PET/CT-guided percutaneous liver procedures have the potential to target FDG-avid liver masses with equivalent accuracy to 180 s summed, breath-hold PET acquisitions and may facilitate strategies that improve image registration and shorten procedure times.
AIM: To determine whether a single 20 s breath-hold positron-emission tomography (PET) acquisition obtained during combined PET/computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous liver biopsy or ablation procedures has the potential to target 2-[(18)F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG)-avid liver masses as accurately as up to 180 s breath-hold PET acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 10 adult patients with 13 liver masses who underwent FDG PET/CT-guided percutaneous biopsies (n = 5) or ablations (n = 5). PET was acquired as nine sequential 20 s, monitored, same-level breath-hold frames and CT was acquired in one monitored breath-hold. Twenty, 40, 60, and 180 s PET datasets were reconstructed. Two blinded readers marked tumour centres on randomized PET and CT datasets. Three-dimensional spatial localization differences between PET datasets and either 180 s PET or CT were analysed using multiple regression analyses. Statistical tests were two-sided and p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Targeting differences between 20 s PET and 180 s PET ranged from 0.7-20.3 mm (mean 5.3 ± 4.4 mm; median 4.3) and were not statistically different from 40 or 60 s PET (p = 0.74 and 0.91, respectively). Targeting differences between 20 s PET and CT ranged from 1.4-36 mm (mean 9.6 ± 7.1 mm; median 8.2 mm) and were not statistically different from 40, 60, or 180 s PET (p = 0.84, 0.77, and 0.35, respectively). CONCLUSION: Single 20 s breath-hold PET acquisitions from PET/CT-guided percutaneous liver procedures have the potential to target FDG-avid liver masses with equivalent accuracy to 180 s summed, breath-hold PET acquisitions and may facilitate strategies that improve image registration and shorten procedure times.
Authors: Louise M Fanchon; Snjezana Dogan; Andre L Moreira; Sean A Carlin; C Ross Schmidtlein; Ellen Yorke; Aditya P Apte; Irene A Burger; Jeremy C Durack; Joseph P Erinjeri; Majid Maybody; Heiko Schöder; Robert H Siegelbaum; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Joseph O Deasy; Stephen B Solomon; John L Humm; Assen S Kirov Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Giovanni Mauri; Luca Nicosia; Zhen Xu; Salvatore Di Pietro; Lorenzo Monfardini; Guido Bonomo; Gianluca Maria Varano; Francesco Prada; Paolo Della Vigna; Franco Orsi Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Francois H Cornelis; Jeremy C Durack; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Gary A Ulaner; Jason S Lewis; Michael J Morris; Stephen B Solomon Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Leigh C Casadaban; Paul J Catalano; Leslie K Lee; Hyewon Hyun; Kemal Tuncali; Victor H Gerbaudo; Paul B Shyn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: F Cornelis; M Silk; H Schoder; H Takaki; J C Durack; J P Erinjeri; C T Sofocleous; R H Siegelbaum; M Maybody; S B Solomon Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-08-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Aukje A J M van Tilborg; Hester J Scheffer; Marcus C de Jong; Laurien G P H Vroomen; Karin Nielsen; Cornelis van Kuijk; Petrousjka M P van den Tol; Martijn R Meijerink Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 2.740