Literature DB >> 29250567

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

Darrin Byrd1, Rebecca Christopfel1, John Buatti2, Eduardo Moros3, Sadek Nehmeh4, Adam Opanowski5, Paul Kinahan1.   

Abstract

Clinical trials that evaluate cancer treatments may benefit from positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, which for many cancers can discriminate between effective and ineffective treatments. However, the image metrics used to quantify disease and evaluate treatment may be biased by many factors related to clinical protocols and PET system settings, many of which are site- and/or manufacturer-specific. An observational study was conducted using two surveys that were designed to record key sources of bias and variability in PET imaging. These were distributed to hospitals across the United States. The first round of surveys was designed and distributed by the American College of Radiology's Centers of Quantitative Imaging Excellence program in 2011. The second survey expanded on the first and was completed by the National Cancer Institute's Quantitative Imaging Network. Sixty-three sites responded to the first survey and 36 to the second. Key imaging parameters varied across participating sites. The range of reported methods for image acquisition and reconstruction suggests that signal biases are not matched between sites. Patient preparation was also inconsistent, potentially contributing additional variability. For multicenter clinical trials, efforts to control biases through standardization of imaging procedures should precede patient measurements.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PET clinical trial; PET quantitation; multicenter PET; standardized uptake value

Year:  2017        PMID: 29250567      PMCID: PMC5722234          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.5.1.011012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)        ISSN: 2329-4302


  37 in total

1.  Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium.

Authors:  Frederic H Fahey; Paul E Kinahan; Robert K Doot; Mehmet Kocak; Harold Thurston; Tina Young Poussaint
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-04-20       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies.

Authors:  Linda M Velasquez; Ronald Boellaard; Georgia Kollia; Wendy Hayes; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Susan M Galbraith
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-09-16       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  A practical, automated quality assurance method for measuring spatial resolution in PET.

Authors:  Martin A Lodge; Arman Rahmim; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-07-17       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Quantitative PET/CT scanner performance characterization based upon the society of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging clinical trials network oncology clinical simulator phantom.

Authors:  John J Sunderland; Paul E Christian
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2014-12-18       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Summary of the UPICT Protocol for 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging in Oncology Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Michael M Graham; Richard L Wahl; John M Hoffman; Jeffrey T Yap; John J Sunderland; Ronald Boellaard; Eric S Perlman; Paul E Kinahan; Paul E Christian; Otto S Hoekstra; Gary S Dorfman
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET.

Authors:  W A Weber; S I Ziegler; R Thödtmann; A R Hanauske; M Schwaiger
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 10.057

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

Authors:  Larry A Pierce; Brian F Elston; David A Clunie; Dennis Nelson; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard; Nanda C Krak; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Positron emission tomography in staging early lung cancer: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Donna E Maziak; Gail E Darling; Richard I Inculet; Karen Y Gulenchyn; Albert A Driedger; Yee C Ung; John D Miller; Chu-Shu Gu; Kathryn J Cline; William K Evans; Mark N Levine
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-07-06       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  1 in total

1.  Simultaneous Estimation of Bias and Resolution in PET Images With a Long-Lived "Pocket" Phantom System.

Authors:  Paul E Kinahan; Darrin W Byrd; Brian Helba; Kristen A Wangerin; Xiaoxiao Liu; Joshua R Levy; Keith C Allberg; Karthik Krishnan; Ricardo S Avila
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2018-03
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.