Mario Sansone1, Mario Cesarelli2, Alessandro Pepino2, Paolo Bifulco2, Maria Romano2, Maria Luisa De Rimini3, Pietro Muto3. 1. Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technologies, University 'Federico II' of Naples, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: msansone@unina.it. 2. Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technologies, University 'Federico II' of Naples, Naples, Italy. 3. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, AO dei Colli, Monaldi Hospital, Naples, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigated whether the follow-up by means of positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT) is reliable when using different software packages for image reviewing. METHODOLOGY: This study explored the influence of software on patient follow up by analysing images acquired by means of PET/CT equipment. Images were analysed using three software packages. The study included two patients who underwent examinations over the course of 2 years. An expert radiologist selected the regions of interest surrounding the lesions on each slice. RESULTS: We carried out an analysis of differences among software packages on a region of interest and on a volume of interest basis, and using time-course analysis (differences among successive examinations). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that within the limits of the currently available guidelines for PET evaluation, although differences exist among the standardised uptake value measurements by different software packages, they might not alter the qualitative time-course analysis (evaluation of follow-up) if the whole analysis is performed using a fixed package.
BACKGROUND: This study investigated whether the follow-up by means of positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT) is reliable when using different software packages for image reviewing. METHODOLOGY: This study explored the influence of software on patient follow up by analysing images acquired by means of PET/CT equipment. Images were analysed using three software packages. The study included two patients who underwent examinations over the course of 2 years. An expert radiologist selected the regions of interest surrounding the lesions on each slice. RESULTS: We carried out an analysis of differences among software packages on a region of interest and on a volume of interest basis, and using time-course analysis (differences among successive examinations). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that within the limits of the currently available guidelines for PET evaluation, although differences exist among the standardised uptake value measurements by different software packages, they might not alter the qualitative time-course analysis (evaluation of follow-up) if the whole analysis is performed using a fixed package.