Hui Tan1,2,3, Xiuli Sui1,2,3, Hongyan Yin1,2,3, Haojun Yu1,2,3, Yusen Gu1,2,3, Shuguang Chen1,2,3, Pengcheng Hu1,2,3, Wujian Mao1,2,3, Hongcheng Shi4,5,6. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. 2. Nuclear Medicine Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. 3. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, 200032, China. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. shi.hongcheng@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 5. Nuclear Medicine Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. shi.hongcheng@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 6. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, 200032, China. shi.hongcheng@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose was to explore the effects of total-body PET/CT with half-dose 18F-FDG activity on image quality, compared with those of conventional PET/CT with clinical routine full-dose 18F-FDG in lung cancer. METHODS: Fifty-six primary lung cancer patients who underwent total-body PET/CT on a uEXPLORER scanner with half-dose (1.85 MBq/kg) 18F-FDG activity before treatment were retrospectively studied; among them, 28 patients were confirmed by postoperative pathologic examination and 28 patients by biopsy. After matching with the pathological study results, the other 28 patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery were selected for the full-dose (3.70 MBq/kg) group. Patients in the full-dose group were studied with a conventional uM780 PET/CT scanner. The acquisition time of the half-dose group was 15 min, split into 4-min and 2-min duration groups, which were all referred to as G15, G4 and G2, respectively. The PET/CT scanning speed in the full-dose group was 2 min/bed. Image quality was evaluated by subjective and objective analyses. The subjective analysis method was carried out with a 5-point scale (5-excellent, 1-poor). Objective analysis indicators of PET image quality included the SUVmax, SUVmean and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the liver; the SUVmax and SUVmean of the blood pool; and the SUVmax and tumour-to-background ratio (TBR) of the lesions. G15 served as the reference for G2 and G4 to test lesion detectability. RESULTS: Image quality scores in G2 (4.3 ± 0.7) were significantly higher than those in the full-dose group (3.7 ± 0.6) (p = 0.004). The mean and SD of the image quality scores in G4 and G15 were 4.9 ± 0.2 and 5.0 ± 0.0, respectively. The liver SNR in G2 was significantly higher than that in the full-dose group; the corresponding SNR were 11.7 ± 1.5 and 8.3 ± 1.2 (p < 0.001), respectively. The liver SNR significantly increased with the time of acquisition among G2, G4 and G15 (11.1 ± 1.7, 15.2 ± 3.4 and 30.5 ± 6.0, all p < 0.05). G15 served as the reference, and all these lesions (100%) could be identified by G2 and G4. CONCLUSION: Total-body PET/CT with half-dose 18F-FDG activity in G2 and G4 achieved comparable image quality to conventional PET/CT, and its image quality was better than that of conventional PET/CT with clinical routine full-dose 18F-FDG in lung cancer.
PURPOSE: The purpose was to explore the effects of total-body PET/CT with half-dose 18F-FDG activity on image quality, compared with those of conventional PET/CT with clinical routine full-dose 18F-FDG in lung cancer. METHODS: Fifty-six primary lung cancerpatients who underwent total-body PET/CT on a uEXPLORER scanner with half-dose (1.85 MBq/kg) 18F-FDG activity before treatment were retrospectively studied; among them, 28 patients were confirmed by postoperative pathologic examination and 28 patients by biopsy. After matching with the pathological study results, the other 28 patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery were selected for the full-dose (3.70 MBq/kg) group. Patients in the full-dose group were studied with a conventional uM780 PET/CT scanner. The acquisition time of the half-dose group was 15 min, split into 4-min and 2-min duration groups, which were all referred to as G15, G4 and G2, respectively. The PET/CT scanning speed in the full-dose group was 2 min/bed. Image quality was evaluated by subjective and objective analyses. The subjective analysis method was carried out with a 5-point scale (5-excellent, 1-poor). Objective analysis indicators of PET image quality included the SUVmax, SUVmean and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the liver; the SUVmax and SUVmean of the blood pool; and the SUVmax and tumour-to-background ratio (TBR) of the lesions. G15 served as the reference for G2 and G4 to test lesion detectability. RESULTS: Image quality scores in G2 (4.3 ± 0.7) were significantly higher than those in the full-dose group (3.7 ± 0.6) (p = 0.004). The mean and SD of the image quality scores in G4 and G15 were 4.9 ± 0.2 and 5.0 ± 0.0, respectively. The liver SNR in G2 was significantly higher than that in the full-dose group; the corresponding SNR were 11.7 ± 1.5 and 8.3 ± 1.2 (p < 0.001), respectively. The liver SNR significantly increased with the time of acquisition among G2, G4 and G15 (11.1 ± 1.7, 15.2 ± 3.4 and 30.5 ± 6.0, all p < 0.05). G15 served as the reference, and all these lesions (100%) could be identified by G2 and G4. CONCLUSION: Total-body PET/CT with half-dose 18F-FDG activity in G2 and G4 achieved comparable image quality to conventional PET/CT, and its image quality was better than that of conventional PET/CT with clinical routine full-dose 18F-FDG in lung cancer.
Authors: Ramsey D Badawi; Hongcheng Shi; Pengcheng Hu; Shuguang Chen; Tianyi Xu; Patricia M Price; Yu Ding; Benjamin A Spencer; Lorenzo Nardo; Weiping Liu; Jun Bao; Terry Jones; Hongdi Li; Simon R Cherry Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Asha Kandathil; Fernando U Kay; Yasmeen M Butt; Jason W Wachsmann; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Radiographics Date: 2018 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Joyce van Sluis; Ronald Boellaard; Ananthi Somasundaram; Paul van Snick; Ronald Borra; Rudi Dierckx; Gilles Stormezand; Andor Glaudemans; Walter Noordzij Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ursula Nestle; Tanja Schimek-Jasch; Stephanie Kremp; Andrea Schaefer-Schuler; Michael Mix; Andreas Küsters; Marco Tosch; Thomas Hehr; Susanne Martina Eschmann; Yves-Pierre Bultel; Peter Hass; Jochen Fleckenstein; Alexander Thieme; Marcus Stockinger; Karin Dieckmann; Matthias Miederer; Gabriele Holl; H Christian Rischke; Eleni Gkika; Sonja Adebahr; Jochem König; Anca-Ligia Grosu Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Roberto Delgado-Bolton; Wim J G Oyen; Francesco Giammarile; Klaus Tatsch; Wolfgang Eschner; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Sally F Barrington; Lucy C Pike; Wolfgang A Weber; Sigrid Stroobants; Dominique Delbeke; Kevin J Donohoe; Scott Holbrook; Michael M Graham; Giorgio Testanera; Otto S Hoekstra; Josee Zijlstra; Eric Visser; Corneline J Hoekstra; Jan Pruim; Antoon Willemsen; Bertjan Arends; Jörg Kotzerke; Andreas Bockisch; Thomas Beyer; Arturo Chiti; Bernd J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Joel S Karp; Varsha Viswanath; Michael J Geagan; Gerd Muehllehner; Austin R Pantel; Michael J Parma; Amy E Perkins; Jeffrey P Schmall; Matthew E Werner; Margaret E Daube-Witherspoon Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Ian Alberts; Robin Schepers; Konstantinos Zeimpekis; Hasan Sari; Axel Rominger; Ali Afshar-Oromieh Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-09-22 Impact factor: 10.057