Stephane Chauvie1, Fabrizio Bergesio2, Federica Fioroni3, Marco Brambilla4, Alberto Biggi2, Annibale Versari3, Luca Guerra5, Giovanni Storto6, Pellegrino Musto6, Stefano Luminari7, Maria G Cabras8, Monica Balzarotti9, Luigi Rigacci10, Maurizio Martelli11, Umberto Vitolo12, Massimo Federico7, Andrea Gallamini13. 1. Santa Croce e Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy. Electronic address: chauvie.s@ospedale.cuneo.it. 2. Santa Croce e Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy. 3. Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova-IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 4. University Hospital Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy. 5. San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy. 6. IRCCS-CROB, Referral Cancer Center of Basilicata, Rionero in Vulture (Pz), Italy. 7. Department of Diagnostic, Clinical and Public Health Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. 8. Businco Hospital, Cagliari, Italy. 9. Humanitas Cancer Centre, Rozzano, Italy. 10. AOU Careggi Hematology Department, Firenze, Italy. 11. University "Sapienza" Roma, Department of Cellular Biotechnologies and Hematology, Italy. 12. Città della Salute Hospital, Torino, Italy. 13. A. Lacassagne Cancer Center, Nice, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The quantitative assessment of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans using standardized uptake value and derived parameters proved to be superior to traditional qualitative assessment in several retrospective or mono-centric prospective reports. Since different scanners give different quantitative readings, a program for clinical trial qualification (CTQ) is mandatory to guarantee a reliable and reproducible use of quantitative PET in prospective multi-centre clinical trials and in every-day clinical life. METHODS: We set up, under the auspices of Italian Foundation on Lymphoma (FIL), a CTQ program consisting of the PET/CT scan acquisition and analysis of (18)F and (68)Ge NEMA/IEC image quality phantoms for the reduction of inter-scanner variability. Variability was estimated on background activity concentration (BAC) and sphere to background ratio (SBR). RESULTS: The use of a (68)Ge phantom allowed reducing the inter-scanner variability among different scanners from 74.0% to 20.5% in BAC and from 63.3% to 17.4% in SBR compared to using the (18)F phantom. The CTQ criteria were fulfilled at first round in 100% and 28% of PET scanners with (68)Ge and (18)F respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The (68)Ge phantom proved a reliable tool for PET scanner qualification, able to significantly reduce the potential sources of error while increasing the reproducibility of PET derived quantitative parameter measurement.
PURPOSE: The quantitative assessment of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans using standardized uptake value and derived parameters proved to be superior to traditional qualitative assessment in several retrospective or mono-centric prospective reports. Since different scanners give different quantitative readings, a program for clinical trial qualification (CTQ) is mandatory to guarantee a reliable and reproducible use of quantitative PET in prospective multi-centre clinical trials and in every-day clinical life. METHODS: We set up, under the auspices of Italian Foundation on Lymphoma (FIL), a CTQ program consisting of the PET/CT scan acquisition and analysis of (18)F and (68)Ge NEMA/IEC image quality phantoms for the reduction of inter-scanner variability. Variability was estimated on background activity concentration (BAC) and sphere to background ratio (SBR). RESULTS: The use of a (68)Ge phantom allowed reducing the inter-scanner variability among different scanners from 74.0% to 20.5% in BAC and from 63.3% to 17.4% in SBR compared to using the (18)F phantom. The CTQ criteria were fulfilled at first round in 100% and 28% of PET scanners with (68)Ge and (18)F respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The (68)Ge phantom proved a reliable tool for PET scanner qualification, able to significantly reduce the potential sources of error while increasing the reproducibility of PET derived quantitative parameter measurement.
Authors: Darrin Byrd; Rebecca Christopfel; Grae Arabasz; Ciprian Catana; Joel Karp; Martin A Lodge; Charles Laymon; Eduardo G Moros; Mikalai Budzevich; Sadek Nehmeh; Joshua Scheuermann; John Sunderland; Jun Zhang; Paul Kinahan Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-04
Authors: Darrin W Byrd; Robert K Doot; Keith C Allberg; Lawrence R MacDonald; Wendy A McDougald; Brian F Elston; Hannah M Linden; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Tomography Date: 2016-12
Authors: Delphine Vallot; Elena De Ponti; Sabrina Morzenti; Anna Gramek; Anna Pieczonka; Gabriel Reynés Llompart; Jakub Siennicki; Paul Deak; Chiranjib Dutta; Jorge Uribe; Olivier Caselles Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2020-05-12
Authors: P Bonomo; A Merlotti; S Morbelli; V Berti; C Saieva; F Bergesio; A Bacigalupo; L Belgioia; C Franzese; E Lopci; A Casolo; E D'Angelo; D Alterio; L Travaini; L Berretta; V Pirro; S Ursino; D Volterrani; M Roncali; F Vigo; S Cicchetti; F Scalone; G Belli; S Cauda; I Desideri; E Russi; L Livi; A Bianchi Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2020-05-26