Literature DB >> 25131649

Variation of system performance, quality control standards and adherence to international FDG-PET/CT imaging guidelines. A national survey of PET/CT operations in Austria.

I Rausch1, H Bergmann, B Geist, M Schaffarich, A Hirtl, M Hacker, T Beyer.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Austria; FDG; PET/CT; multicentre; protocols; quality control

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25131649     DOI: 10.3413/Nukmed-0665-14-05

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nuklearmedizin        ISSN: 0029-5566            Impact factor:   1.379


  14 in total

1.  The engagement of FDG PET/CT image quality and harmonized quantification: from competitive to complementary.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Recent Survey of Effective Doses of F-18 FDG Torso PET/CT in Korea and the Current Recommendations for CT Protocols of PET/CT.

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

Review 3.  Novel technology of molecular radio-guidance for lymph node dissection in recurrent prostate cancer by PSMA-ligands.

Authors:  Isabel Rauscher; Thomas Horn; Matthias Eiber; Jürgen E Gschwend; Tobias Maurer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Visual and semiquantitative 11C-methionine PET: an independent prognostic factor for survival of newly diagnosed and treatment-naïve gliomas.

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

5.  A multicentre comparison of quantitative (90)Y PET/CT for dosimetric purposes after radioembolization with resin microspheres : The QUEST Phantom Study.

Authors:  Kathy P Willowson; Michael Tapner; Dale L Bailey
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Retrospective quality control review of FDG scans in the imaging sub-study of PALETTE EORTC 62072/VEG110727: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial.

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

7.  Radiation Dose from Whole-Body F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography: Nationwide Survey in Korea.

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

8.  Performance evaluation of the Biograph mCT Flow PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard.

Authors:  Ivo Rausch; Jacobo Cal-González; David Dapra; Hans Jürgen Gallowitsch; Peter Lind; Thomas Beyer; Gregory Minear
Journal:  EJNMMI Phys       Date:  2015-10-26

9.  Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients.

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

10.  Lungtech, a phase II EORTC trial of SBRT for centrally located lung tumours - a clinical physics perspective.

Authors:  Marie Lambrecht; Christos Melidis; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Sonja Adebahr; Ronald Boellaard; Marcel Verheij; Matthias Guckenberger; Ursula Nestle; Coen Hurkmans
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.