I Rausch1, H Bergmann, B Geist, M Schaffarich, A Hirtl, M Hacker, T Beyer. 1. Ivo Rausch, Centre for medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, Austria, Tel. +43/1/404 005 54 50, Fax +43/1/4040 03 98 89, E-mail: ivo.rausch@meduniwien.ac.at).
Abstract
AIM: To gather information on clinical operations, quality control (QC) standards and adoption of guidelines for FDG-PET/CT imaging in Austrian PET/CT centres. METHODS: A written survey composed of 68 questions related to A) PET/CT centre and installation, B) standard protocol parameters for FDG-PET/CT imaging of oncology patients, and C) standard QC procedures was conducted between November and December 2013 among all Austrian PET/CT centres. In addition, a NEMA-NU2 2012 image quality phantom test was performed using standard whole-body imaging settings on all PET/CT systems with a lesion-to-background ratio of 4. Recovery coefficients (RC) were calculated for each lesion and PET/CT system. RESULTS: A) 13 PET/CT systems were installed in 12 nuclear medicine departments at public hospitals. B) Average fasting prior to FDG-PET/CT was 7.6 (4-12) h. All sites measured blood glucose levels while using different cut-off levels (64%: 150 mg/dl). Weight-based activity injection was performed at 83% sites with a mean FDG activity of 4.1 MBq/kg. Average FDG uptake time was 55 (45-75) min. All sites employed CT contrast agents (variation from 1%-95% of the patients). All sites reported SUV-max. C) Frequency of QC tests varied significantly and QC phantom measurements revealed significant differences in RCs. CONCLUSION: Significant variations in FDG-PET/CT protocol parameters among all Austrian PET/CT users were observed. Subsequently, efforts need to be put in place to further standardize imaging protocols. At a minimum clinical PET/CT operations should ensure compliance with existing guidelines. Further, standardized QC procedures must be followed to improve quantitative accuracy across PET/CT centres.
AIM: To gather information on clinical operations, quality control (QC) standards and adoption of guidelines for FDG-PET/CT imaging in Austrian PET/CT centres. METHODS: A written survey composed of 68 questions related to A) PET/CT centre and installation, B) standard protocol parameters for FDG-PET/CT imaging of oncology patients, and C) standard QC procedures was conducted between November and December 2013 among all Austrian PET/CT centres. In addition, a NEMA-NU2 2012 image quality phantom test was performed using standard whole-body imaging settings on all PET/CT systems with a lesion-to-background ratio of 4. Recovery coefficients (RC) were calculated for each lesion and PET/CT system. RESULTS: A) 13 PET/CT systems were installed in 12 nuclear medicine departments at public hospitals. B) Average fasting prior to FDG-PET/CT was 7.6 (4-12) h. All sites measured blood glucose levels while using different cut-off levels (64%: 150 mg/dl). Weight-based activity injection was performed at 83% sites with a mean FDG activity of 4.1 MBq/kg. Average FDG uptake time was 55 (45-75) min. All sites employed CT contrast agents (variation from 1%-95% of the patients). All sites reported SUV-max. C) Frequency of QC tests varied significantly and QC phantom measurements revealed significant differences in RCs. CONCLUSION: Significant variations in FDG-PET/CT protocol parameters among all Austrian PET/CT users were observed. Subsequently, efforts need to be put in place to further standardize imaging protocols. At a minimum clinical PET/CT operations should ensure compliance with existing guidelines. Further, standardized QC procedures must be followed to improve quantitative accuracy across PET/CT centres.
Entities:
Keywords:
Austria; FDG; PET/CT; multicentre; protocols; quality control
Authors: Ari Chong; Jung Mi Park; Kyoungjune Pak; Yong-Il Kim; Hyun Woo Kwon; Eun Seong Lee; Ki Pyo Nam; Ho-Young Lee; Hong Jae Lee; Ik Dong Yoo; Jae Seon Eo; Ji Young Kim; Joon-Kee Yoon; Kyeong Min Kim; Seong Min Kim; Tae-Sung Kim Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-07-20
Authors: Nina Poetsch; Adelheid Woehrer; Johanna Gesperger; Julia Furtner; Alexander R Haug; Dorothee Wilhelm; Georg Widhalm; Georgios Karanikas; Michael Weber; Ivo Rausch; Markus Mitterhauser; Wolfgang Wadsak; Marcus Hacker; Matthias Preusser; Tatjana Traub-Weidinger Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Ivalina Hristova; Ronald Boellaard; Wouter Vogel; Felix Mottaghy; Sandrine Marreaud; Sandra Collette; Patrick Schöffski; Roberta Sanfilippo; Raz Dewji; Winette van der Graaf; Wim J G Oyen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Hyun Woo Kwon; Jong Phil Kim; Hong Jae Lee; Jin Chul Paeng; Jae Sung Lee; Gi Jeong Cheon; Dong Soo Lee; June-Key Chung; Keon Wook Kang Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Ivo Rausch; Jacobo Cal-González; David Dapra; Hans Jürgen Gallowitsch; Peter Lind; Thomas Beyer; Gregory Minear Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2015-10-26
Authors: Elske Quak; Pierre-Yves Le Roux; Michael S Hofman; Philippe Robin; David Bourhis; Jason Callahan; David Binns; Cédric Desmonts; Pierre-Yves Salaun; Rodney J Hicks; Nicolas Aide Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 9.236