Literature DB >> 26550541

Quantitative differences in [(18)F] NaF PET/CT: TOF versus non-TOF measurements.

Jorge D Oldan1, Timothy G Turkington2, Kingshuk Choudhury3, Bennett B Chin2.   

Abstract

[(18)F] sodium fluoride (NaF) PET/CT is a current, clinically relevant method to assess bone metastases. Time-of-flight (TOF) PET provides better statistical data quality, which can improve either lower image noise or improve resolution, or both, depending on the image reconstruction. Improved resolution can improve quantitative measurements of standardized uptake value (SUV) in small structures. These quantitative differences may be important in both clinical interpretation and multicenter clinical trials where quantification is integral to assessing response to therapy. The purpose of this study is to determine if and by how much SUV quantitatively differs between TOF and conventional non-TOF reconstructions in [(18)F] NaF PET/CT. SUV measurements (mean and maximum) were compared in TOF and non-TOF [(18)F] NaF PET-CT reconstructions for 47 prostate cancer patients in normal regions including: soft tissue (n=282 total regions; liver, aorta, posterior abdominal fat, bladder, brain, and paraspinal muscles), and osseous structures (n=188; T12 vertebral body, femoral diaphyseal cortex, femoral head, and lateral rib). Comparisons were also made for benign degenerative changes (n=281) and metastases (n=159). TOF and non-TOF SUVs were assessed with paired t-test and linear correlations. Normal soft tissue showed lower SUVmean for TOF compared to non-TOF in liver, brain, and adipose. All osseous structures showed higher SUVmean for TOF compared to non-TOF including normal regions, degenerative joint disease, and metastases. For all metastatic lesions, the average SUVmean increased by 2.5%, and in degenerative joint disease it increased by 3.5% on TOF reconstructions. Smaller lesion size was a significant factor influencing this increase in SUVmean. TOF SUVmean values are higher in osseous structures and lower in background soft tissue structures. While these differences are statistically significant, the magnitudes of these changes are relatively modest. Smaller osseous lesions may have higher contrast and higher SUVmean values with TOF reconstruction compared to non-TOF reconstructions. The differences in TOF vs. non-TOF images should be considered when evaluating response to therapy and in the design of multi-center clinical trials.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PET/CT; Sodium fluoride; positron emission tomography; prostate cancer; quantification; time of flight

Year:  2015        PMID: 26550541      PMCID: PMC4620177     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging


  18 in total

1.  Investigation of time-of-flight benefit for fully 3-D PET.

Authors:  Suleman Surti; Joel S Karp; Lucretiu M Popescu; Margaret E Daube-Witherspoon; Matthew Werner
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 10.048

2.  Simultaneous recovery of size and radioactivity concentration of small spheroids with PET data.

Authors:  C H Chen; R F Muzic; A D Nelson; L P Adler
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP Planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT.

Authors:  Einat Even-Sapir; Ur Metser; Eyal Mishani; Gennady Lievshitz; Hedva Lerman; Ilan Leibovitch
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET.

Authors:  Georges El Fakhri; Suleman Surti; Cathryn M Trott; Joshua Scheuermann; Joel S Karp
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2011-02-14       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  An assessment of the impact of incorporating time-of-flight information into clinical PET/CT imaging.

Authors:  Cristina Lois; Bjoern W Jakoby; Misty J Long; Karl F Hubner; David W Barker; Michael E Casey; Maurizio Conti; Vladimir Y Panin; Dan J Kadrmas; David W Townsend
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  18F-FDG PET early response evaluation of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with concomitant chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  Edwin A Usmanij; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Esther G C Troost; Liesbeth Peters-Bax; Erik H F M van der Heijden; Johannes H A M Kaanders; Wim J G Oyen; Olga C J Schuurbiers; Johan Bussink
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 7.  Targeted PET/CT imaging of vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques: microcalcification with sodium fluoride and inflammation with fluorodeoxyglucose.

Authors:  Wengen Chen; Vasken Dilsizian
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.931

8.  Influences of point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstructions on standardized uptake value of lymph node metastases in FDG-PET.

Authors:  Go Akamatsu; Katsuhiko Mitsumoto; Takafumi Taniguchi; Yuji Tsutsui; Shingo Baba; Masayuki Sasaki
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2013-10-06       Impact factor: 3.528

9.  Design and end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group.

Authors:  Howard I Scher; Susan Halabi; Ian Tannock; Michael Morris; Cora N Sternberg; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Celestia Higano; Glenn J Bubley; Robert Dreicer; Daniel Petrylak; Philip Kantoff; Ethan Basch; William Kevin Kelly; William D Figg; Eric J Small; Tomasz M Beer; George Wilding; Alison Martin; Maha Hussain
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-03-01       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Reference range for intrapatient variability in blood-pool and liver SUV for 18F-FDG PET.

Authors:  Raef R Boktor; Gregory Walker; Roderick Stacey; Samuel Gledhill; Alexander G Pitman
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Rigor and Reproducibility in Analysis of Vascular Calcification.

Authors:  Linda L Demer; Yin Tintut; Kim-Lien Nguyen; Tzung Hsiai; Jason T Lee
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2017-04-14       Impact factor: 17.367

Review 2.  Therapy assessment of bone metastatic disease in the era of 223radium.

Authors:  Elba Etchebehere; Ana Emilia Brito; Alireza Rezaee; Werner Langsteger; Mohsen Beheshti
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Quantitative and Visual Assessments toward Potential Sub-mSv or Ultrafast FDG PET Using High-Sensitivity TOF PET in PET/MRI.

Authors:  Spencer C Behr; Emma Bahroos; Randall A Hawkins; Lorenzo Nardo; Vahid Ravanfar; Emily V Capbarat; Youngho Seo
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 4.  18F-NaF/223RaCl2 theranostics in metastatic prostate cancer: treatment response assessment and prediction of outcome.

Authors:  Hossein Jadvar; Patrick M Colletti
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Association of Tumor [18F]FDG Activity and Diffusion Restriction with Clinical Outcomes of Rhabdomyosarcomas.

Authors:  Arian Pourmehdi Lahiji; Tatianie Jackson; Hossein Nejadnik; Rie von Eyben; Daniel Rubin; Sheri L Spunt; Andrew Quon; Heike Daldrup-Link
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 3.488

6.  Impact of time-of-flight PET on quantification accuracy and lesion detection in simultaneous 18F-choline PET/MRI for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Urs J Muehlematter; Hannes W Nagel; Anton Becker; Julian Mueller; Kerstin N Vokinger; Felipe de Galiza Barbosa; Edwin E G T Ter Voert; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Irene A Burger
Journal:  EJNMMI Res       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 3.138

7.  Impact of TOF on Brain PET With Short-Lived 11C-Labeled Tracers Among Suspected Patients With AD/PD: Using Hybrid PET/MRI.

Authors:  D D N Wimalarathne; Weiwei Ruan; Xun Sun; Fang Liu; Yongkang Gai; Qingyao Liu; Fan Hu; Xiaoli Lan
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-03-02
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.