| Literature DB >> 27682837 |
Daniëlle Koopman1,2, Jochen A C van Osch3, Pieter L Jager4, Carlijn J A Tenbergen4,5, Siert Knollema4, Cornelis H Slump5, Jorn A van Dalen3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For tumour imaging with PET, the literature proposes to administer a patient-specific FDG activity that depends quadratically on a patient's body weight. However, a practical approach on how to implement such a protocol in clinical practice is currently lacking. We aimed to provide a practical method to determine a FDG activity formula for whole-body PET examinations that satisfies both the EANM guidelines and this quadratic relation.Entities:
Keywords: EANM guidelines; FDG-PET; Scan time protocol; Tumour imaging
Year: 2016 PMID: 27682837 PMCID: PMC5040656 DOI: 10.1186/s40658-016-0158-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Phys ISSN: 2197-7364
Fig. 1Flowchart demonstrating the eight steps to obtain a patient-specific FDG activity formula
Fig. 2Phantom PET/CT images. Axial PET (a) and attenuation CT (b) images from the IQ phantom on the scanner bed. The phantom spheres and background were filled with FDG activity (ratio 10:1), and the scan duration was 10 min. The squares illustrate three ROIs in one axial plane that are used to determine the COV
RCmean and RCmax ranges as defined by EARL [8], compared with RC results for all spheres at 10 min and 62 s scan duration
| Sphere volume (mL) | EARL: RCmean range | RCmean at | RCmean at | EARL: RCmax range | RCmax at | RCmax at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26.52 | 0.76–0.89 | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.95–1.16 | 0.98 | 1.05 |
| 11.49 | 0.72–0.85 | 0.75 | 0.74 | 0.91–1.13 | 0.96 | 1.04 |
| 5.57 | 0.63–0.78 | 0.72 | 0.69 | 0.83–1.09 | 0.97 | 0.94 |
| 2.57 | 0.57–0.73 | 0.68 | 0.64 | 0.73–1.01 | 0.93 | 0.90 |
| 1.15 | 0.44–0.60 | 0.44 | 0.48 | 0.59–0.85 | 0.59 | 0.71 |
| 0.52 | 0.27–0.38 | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.31–0.49 | 0.44 | 0.40 |
For all spheres, RCs were within EARL specifications
Fig. 3Comparing COV in the phantom background compartment measured at several scan durations, in graphs with standard scale (a) and log-log scale (b). A power-law fit resulted in COV = 1.26 T −0.51. The coefficient of determination r 2 was 0.98, which indicates a good fit of the trend line to the data. Using the fit result, [B true] = 1.84 kBq/mL and COVmax = 0.15, formula 1 resulted in T min = 62 s. The log-log scale graph can be described by log (COV) = log (a) − b · log (T) in which the steepness of the curve is described by (b)