Cornelia Brendle1, Jürgen Kupferschläger2, Konstantin Nikolaou3, Christian la Fougère4, Sergios Gatidis5, Christina Pfannenberg6. 1. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany. Electronic address: cornelia.brendle@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 2. Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany. Electronic address: juergen.kupferschlaeger@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 3. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany. Electronic address: konstantin.nikolaou@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 4. Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany. Electronic address: christian.lafougere@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 5. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany. Electronic address: sergios.gatidis@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 6. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany. Electronic address: christina.pfannenberg@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: PET quantification using the standard uptake value (SUV) is very prone to variations by technical factors of the scanner system and patient specific characteristics. Aim of the study was to investigate the reproducibility of SUV values between different measures and different reconstruction algorithms in a PET/CT scanner of the newest generation. METHODS: The time-of-flight PET datasets of 27 consecutive oncological patients were reconstructed with OSEM3D in two different matrix sizes (200 × 200 and 400 × 400) as well as in a matrix size of 400 × 400 and additional point-spread-reconstruction. The standardized uptake values SUVmax, SUVmean and SUVpeak in 60 lesions were compared concerning their variability in the three reconstructions. RESULTS: The addition of point-spread-reconstruction causes a significant increase of SUV values in comparison to OSEM 3D. SUVpeak showed the highest reproducibility between the different reconstruction algorithms. The variability of SUVmax and SUVmean increases in small lesions <5 ml, while SUVpeak remains more stable. CONCLUSION: SUVmax, SUVmean and SUVpeak can be used for PET quantification in principle. However, quantification of small lesions is difficult. SUVpeak is the most robust method when using varying reconstruction methods, especially in small lesions.
INTRODUCTION: PET quantification using the standard uptake value (SUV) is very prone to variations by technical factors of the scanner system and patient specific characteristics. Aim of the study was to investigate the reproducibility of SUV values between different measures and different reconstruction algorithms in a PET/CT scanner of the newest generation. METHODS: The time-of-flight PET datasets of 27 consecutive oncological patients were reconstructed with OSEM3D in two different matrix sizes (200 × 200 and 400 × 400) as well as in a matrix size of 400 × 400 and additional point-spread-reconstruction. The standardized uptake values SUVmax, SUVmean and SUVpeak in 60 lesions were compared concerning their variability in the three reconstructions. RESULTS: The addition of point-spread-reconstruction causes a significant increase of SUV values in comparison to OSEM 3D. SUVpeak showed the highest reproducibility between the different reconstruction algorithms. The variability of SUVmax and SUVmean increases in small lesions <5 ml, while SUVpeak remains more stable. CONCLUSION: SUVmax, SUVmean and SUVpeak can be used for PET quantification in principle. However, quantification of small lesions is difficult. SUVpeak is the most robust method when using varying reconstruction methods, especially in small lesions.
Authors: Andrei Gafita; Marie Bieth; Markus Krönke; Giles Tetteh; Fernando Navarro; Hui Wang; Elisabeth Günther; Bjoern Menze; Wolfgang A Weber; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Johannes Schwenck; Hansjoerg Rempp; Gerald Reischl; Stephan Kruck; Arnulf Stenzl; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christina Pfannenberg; Christian la Fougère Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 9.236
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
Authors: Karim Armanious; Tobias Hepp; Thomas Küstner; Helmut Dittmann; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christian La Fougère; Bin Yang; Sergios Gatidis Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2020-05-24 Impact factor: 3.138
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