Literature DB >> 25989387

A Digital Reference Object to Analyze Calculation Accuracy of PET Standardized Uptake Value.

Larry A Pierce1, Brian F Elston1, David A Clunie1, Dennis Nelson1, Paul E Kinahan1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the extent of variations in computing standardized uptake value (SUV) by body weight (SUV(BW)) among different software packages and to propose a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) reference test object to ensure the standardization of SUV computation between medical image viewing workstations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Research ethics board approval was not necessary because this study only evaluated images of a phantom. A synthetic set of positron emission tomographic (PET)/computed tomographic (CT) image data, called a digital reference object (DRO), with known SUV was created. The DRO was sent to 16 sites and evaluated on 21 different PET/CT display software packages. Users were asked to draw various regions of interest (ROIs) on specific features and report the maximum, minimum, mean, and standard deviation of the SUVs for each ROI. Numerical tolerances were defined for each metric, and the fraction of reported values within the tolerance was recorded, as was the mean, standard deviation, and range of the metrics.
RESULTS: The errors in reported maximum SUV ranged from -37.8% to 0% for an isolated voxel with 4.11:1 target-to-background activity level, and errors in the reported mean SUV ranged from -1.6% to 100% for a region with controlled noise. There was also a range of errors in the less commonly used metrics of minimum SUV and standard deviation SUV.
CONCLUSION: The variability of computed SUV(BW) between different software packages is substantial enough to warrant the introduction of a reference standard for medical image viewing workstations. © RSNA, 2015

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25989387      PMCID: PMC4618774          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015141262

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  5 in total

1.  PET performance measurements using the NEMA NU 2-2001 standard.

Authors:  Margaret E Daube-Witherspoon; Joel S Karp; Michael E Casey; Frank P DiFilippo; Horace Hines; Gerd Muehllehner; Vilim Simcic; Charles W Stearns; Lars-Eric Adam; Steve Kohlmyer; Vesna Sossi
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage.

Authors:  Joseph A Thie
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 3.  A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements.

Authors:  Michael C Adams; Timothy G Turkington; Joshua M Wilson; Terence Z Wong
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Design considerations for using PET as a response measure in single site and multicenter clinical trials.

Authors:  Robert K Doot; Brenda F Kurland; Paul E Kinahan; David A Mankoff
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 5.  Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy.

Authors:  Paul E Kinahan; James W Fletcher
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.875

  5 in total
  17 in total

1.  Classification and evaluation strategies of auto-segmentation approaches for PET: Report of AAPM task group No. 211.

Authors:  Mathieu Hatt; John A Lee; Charles R Schmidtlein; Issam El Naqa; Curtis Caldwell; Elisabetta De Bernardi; Wei Lu; Shiva Das; Xavier Geets; Vincent Gregoire; Robert Jeraj; Michael P MacManus; Osama R Mawlawi; Ursula Nestle; Andrei B Pugachev; Heiko Schöder; Tony Shepherd; Emiliano Spezi; Dimitris Visvikis; Habib Zaidi; Assen S Kirov
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Longitudinal monitoring of reconstructed activity concentration on a clinical time-of-flight PET/CT scanner.

Authors:  Lawrence R MacDonald; Amy E Perkins; Chi-Hua Tung
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-11-23

3.  PET-derived tumor metrics predict DLBCL response and progression-free survival.

Authors:  Prioty Islam; Jordan Goldstein; Christopher R Flowers
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2019-02-04

Review 4.  Towards enhanced PET quantification in clinical oncology.

Authors:  Habib Zaidi; Nicolas Karakatsanis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Multicenter survey of PET/CT protocol parameters that affect standardized uptake values.

Authors:  Darrin Byrd; Rebecca Christopfel; John Buatti; Eduardo Moros; Sadek Nehmeh; Adam Opanowski; Paul Kinahan
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-12-08

6.  Variability in Quantitative DCE-MRI: Sources and Solutions.

Authors:  Harrison Kim
Journal:  J Nat Sci       Date:  2018

7.  Hot spot imaging in cardiovascular diseases: an information statement from SNMMI, ASNC, and EANM.

Authors:  Brett W Sperry; Timothy M Bateman; Esma A Akin; Paco E Bravo; Wengen Chen; Vasken Dilsizian; Fabien Hyafil; Yiu Ming Khor; Robert J H Miller; Riemer H J A Slart; Piotr Slomka; Hein Verberne; Edward J Miller; Chi Liu
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 3.872

8.  The QIBA Profile for FDG PET/CT as an Imaging Biomarker Measuring Response to Cancer Therapy.

Authors:  Paul E Kinahan; Eric S Perlman; John J Sunderland; Rathan Subramaniam; Scott D Wollenweber; Timothy G Turkington; Martin A Lodge; Ronald Boellaard; Nancy A Obuchowski; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies.

Authors:  Nicolas Aide; Charline Lasnon; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Terez Sera; Bernhard Sattler; Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  Differences among [18F]FDG PET-derived parameters in lung cancer produced by three software packages.

Authors:  Agnieszka Bos-Liedke; Paulina Cegla; Krzysztof Matuszewski; Ewelina Konstanty; Adam Piotrowski; Magdalena Gross; Julian Malicki; Maciej Kozak
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.