Georg Kuhnert1, Ronald Boellaard2, Sergej Sterzer1, Deniz Kahraman1, Matthias Scheffler3, Jürgen Wolf3, Markus Dietlein1, Alexander Drzezga1, Carsten Kobe4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. 2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Lung Cancer Group Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Cologne Bonn, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. carsten.kobe@uk-koeln.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In oncological imaging using PET/CT, the standardized uptake value has become the most common parameter used to measure tracer accumulation. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate ultra high definition (UHD) and ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) PET/CT reconstructions for their potential impact on quantification. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 40 PET/CT scans of lung cancer patients who had undergone PET/CT. Standardized uptake values corrected for body weight (SUV) and lean body mass (SUL) were determined in the single hottest lesion in the lung and normalized to the liver for UHD and OSEM reconstruction. Quantitative uptake values and their normalized ratios for the two reconstruction settings were compared using the Wilcoxon test. The distribution of quantitative uptake values and their ratios in relation to the reconstruction method used were demonstrated in the form of frequency distribution curves, box-plots and scatter plots. The agreement between OSEM and UHD reconstructions was assessed through Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: A significant difference was observed after OSEM and UHD reconstruction for SUV and SUL data tested (p < 0.0005 in all cases). The mean values of the ratios after OSEM and UHD reconstruction showed equally significant differences (p < 0.0005 in all cases). Bland-Altman analysis showed that the SUV and SUL and their normalized values were, on average, up to 60 % higher after UHD reconstruction as compared to OSEM reconstruction. CONCLUSION: OSEM and HD reconstruction brought a significant difference for SUV and SUL, which remained constantly high after normalization to the liver, indicating that standardization of reconstruction and the use of comparable SUV measurements are crucial when using PET/CT.
BACKGROUND: In oncological imaging using PET/CT, the standardized uptake value has become the most common parameter used to measure tracer accumulation. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate ultra high definition (UHD) and ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) PET/CT reconstructions for their potential impact on quantification. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 40 PET/CT scans of lung cancerpatients who had undergone PET/CT. Standardized uptake values corrected for body weight (SUV) and lean body mass (SUL) were determined in the single hottest lesion in the lung and normalized to the liver for UHD and OSEM reconstruction. Quantitative uptake values and their normalized ratios for the two reconstruction settings were compared using the Wilcoxon test. The distribution of quantitative uptake values and their ratios in relation to the reconstruction method used were demonstrated in the form of frequency distribution curves, box-plots and scatter plots. The agreement between OSEM and UHD reconstructions was assessed through Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: A significant difference was observed after OSEM and UHD reconstruction for SUV and SUL data tested (p < 0.0005 in all cases). The mean values of the ratios after OSEM and UHD reconstruction showed equally significant differences (p < 0.0005 in all cases). Bland-Altman analysis showed that the SUV and SUL and their normalized values were, on average, up to 60 % higher after UHD reconstruction as compared to OSEM reconstruction. CONCLUSION: OSEM and HD reconstruction brought a significant difference for SUV and SUL, which remained constantly high after normalization to the liver, indicating that standardization of reconstruction and the use of comparable SUV measurements are crucial when using PET/CT.
Authors: Deniz Kahraman; Matthias Scheffler; Thomas Zander; Lucia Nogova; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard; Bernd Neumaier; Roland T Ullrich; Arne Holstein; Markus Dietlein; Jürgen Wolf; Carsten Kobe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Wim J G Oyen; Corneline J Hoekstra; Otto S Hoekstra; Eric P Visser; Antoon T Willemsen; Bertjan Arends; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Josee Zijlstra; Anne M Paans; Emile F I Comans; Jan Pruim Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Agostino Chiaravalloti; Roberta Danieli; Paolo Abbatiello; Barbara Di Pietro; Laura Travascio; Maria Cantonetti; Manlio Guazzaroni; Antonio Orlacchio; Giovanni Simonetti; Orazio Schillaci Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-02-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: S F Barrington; J E MacKewn; P Schleyer; P K Marsden; N G Mikhaeel; W Qian; P Mouncey; P Patrick; B Popova; P Johnson; J Radford; M J O'Doherty Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Cornelia Brendle; Jürgen Kupferschläger; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christian la Fougère; Sergios Gatidis; Christina Pfannenberg Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Carsten Kobe; Ronald Boellaard; Jürgen Wolf; Georg Kuhnert; Markus Dietlein; Bernd Neumaier; Alexander Drzezga; Deniz Kahraman Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Xin Li; Steven P Rowe; Jeffrey P Leal; Michael A Gorin; Mohamad E Allaf; Ashley E Ross; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin A Lodge; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bruno Hochhegger; Matheus Zanon; Stephan Altmayer; Gabriel S Pacini; Fernanda Balbinot; Martina Z Francisco; Ruhana Dalla Costa; Guilherme Watte; Marcel Koenigkam Santos; Marcelo C Barros; Diana Penha; Klaus Irion; Edson Marchiori Journal: Lung Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: Brenda F Kurland; Lanell M Peterson; Andrew T Shields; Jean H Lee; Darrin W Byrd; Alena Novakova-Jiresova; Mark Muzi; Jennifer M Specht; David A Mankoff; Hannah M Linden; Paul E Kinahan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jasmin Mettler; Horst Müller; Conrad-Amadeus Voltin; Christian Baues; Bernd Klaeser; Alden Moccia; Peter Borchmann; Andreas Engert; Georg Kuhnert; Alexander E Drzezga; Markus Dietlein; Carsten Kobe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 10.057