Carlotta Dolci1, Chiara Spadavecchia2, Cinzia Crivellaro3, Elena De Ponti4, Sergio Todde5, Sabrina Morzenti4, Elia Anna Turolla5, Andrea Crespi4, Luca Guerra3, Claudio Landoni3. 1. University of Milan-Bicocca, School of Medicine and Surgery, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: carlotta.dolci@unimib.it. 2. University of Milan-Bicocca, School of Medicine and Surgery, Milan, Italy. 3. University of Milan-Bicocca, School of Medicine and Surgery, Milan, Italy; Nuclear Medicine, ASST-Monza, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy. 4. Medical Physics, ASST-Monza, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy. 5. Tecnomed Foundation, University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate influences of reconstruction algorithms and count statistics variation on quantification and treatment response assessment in cancer patients, by using a large field of view-FOV scanner. METHODS: 54 cancer patients underwent PET/CT scan: 1) at baseline: 1.5 min/FOV, reconstructed by ordered-subset expectation maximization + point-spread-function-OSEM-PSF and bayesian penalised-likelihood-BPL algorithm 2) at restaging: 2 min/FOV, reconstructed also at 1.5 and 1 min/FOV, using OSEM-PSF and BPL. SUL (lean-body mass SUV) peak and max were measured for each target-lesion (n = 59). Differences in quantification obtained from datasets with different reconstruction algorithms and different time/FOV were evaluated. For any pair of PET datasets, metabolic response was assessed by using SULpeak, with a threshold of 30% in variation considered as significant. RESULTS: Both at baseline and restaging, SULpeak and max values were higher in BPL reconstructions than in OSEM-PSF (p < 0.0001). SULpeak at different time/FOV reconstructions showed no statistically significant differences both with OSEM-PSF and BPL; SULmax depended on acquisition time (p < 0.05). In 56/59 lesions (95%) therapy response was concordant regardless count statistics variation and reconstruction algorithm; 2/59 (3%) showed different responses according to count statistics, both for OSEM-PSF and BPL; in 1/59 lesion (2%) response was different depending on reconstruction algorithm used. CONCLUSIONS: BPL provided higher SULpeak and max than OSEM-PSF. With a large FOV/high sensitivity scanner, variation of time/FOV in restaging PET scans gave stable and reproducible results in terms of SULpeak, both for OSEM-PSF and BPL. Thus, metabolic response defined by SULpeak variation proved to be quite independent from count statistics.
PURPOSE: To investigate influences of reconstruction algorithms and count statistics variation on quantification and treatment response assessment in cancerpatients, by using a large field of view-FOV scanner. METHODS: 54 cancerpatients underwent PET/CT scan: 1) at baseline: 1.5 min/FOV, reconstructed by ordered-subset expectation maximization + point-spread-function-OSEM-PSF and bayesian penalised-likelihood-BPL algorithm 2) at restaging: 2 min/FOV, reconstructed also at 1.5 and 1 min/FOV, using OSEM-PSF and BPL. SUL (lean-body mass SUV) peak and max were measured for each target-lesion (n = 59). Differences in quantification obtained from datasets with different reconstruction algorithms and different time/FOV were evaluated. For any pair of PET datasets, metabolic response was assessed by using SULpeak, with a threshold of 30% in variation considered as significant. RESULTS: Both at baseline and restaging, SULpeak and max values were higher in BPL reconstructions than in OSEM-PSF (p < 0.0001). SULpeak at different time/FOV reconstructions showed no statistically significant differences both with OSEM-PSF and BPL; SULmax depended on acquisition time (p < 0.05). In 56/59 lesions (95%) therapy response was concordant regardless count statistics variation and reconstruction algorithm; 2/59 (3%) showed different responses according to count statistics, both for OSEM-PSF and BPL; in 1/59 lesion (2%) response was different depending on reconstruction algorithm used. CONCLUSIONS: BPL provided higher SULpeak and max than OSEM-PSF. With a large FOV/high sensitivity scanner, variation of time/FOV in restaging PET scans gave stable and reproducible results in terms of SULpeak, both for OSEM-PSF and BPL. Thus, metabolic response defined by SULpeak variation proved to be quite independent from count statistics.