| Literature DB >> 33846898 |
Hunor Kertész1, Thomas Beyer2, Kevin London3,4, Hamda Saleh3, David Chung3,4, Ivo Rausch2, Jacobo Cal-Gonzalez2,5, Theo Kitsos3, Peter L Kench6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the possibility of reducing the injected activity for whole-body [18F]FDG-PET/CT studies of paediatric oncology patients and to assess the usefulness of time-of-flight (TOF) acquisition on PET image quality at reduced count levels. PROCEDURES: Twenty-nine paediatric oncology patients (12F/17M, 3-18 years old (median age 13y), weight 45±20 kg, BMI 19±4 kg/m2), who underwent routine whole-body PET/CT examinations on a Siemens Biograph mCT TrueV system with TOF capability (555ps) were included in this study. The mean injected activity was 156 ± 45 MBq (3.8 ± 0.8 kg/MBq) and scaled to patient weight. The raw data was collected in listmode (LM) format and pre-processed to simulate reduced levels of [18F]FDG activity (75, 50, 35, 20 and 10% of the original counts) by randomly removing events from the original LM data. All data were reconstructed using the vendor-specific e7-tools with standard OSEM only, with OSEM plus resolution recovery (PSF). The reconstructions were repeated with added TOF (TOF) and PSF+TOF. The benefit of TOF together with the reduced count levels was evaluated by calculating the gains in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the liver and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in all PET-positive lesions before and after TOF employed at every simulated reduced count level. Finally, the PSF+TOF images at 50, 75 and 100% of counts were evaluated clinically on a 5-point scale by three nuclear medicine physicians.Entities:
Keywords: Image reconstruction; Low count imaging; PET/CT; Paediatric imaging; Radiation exposure
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33846898 PMCID: PMC8410733 DOI: 10.1007/s11307-021-01601-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Imaging Biol ISSN: 1536-1632 Impact factor: 3.488
Patient demographics including the diagnosis and the location of the lesions for subsequent SUV-based evaluation
| Patient name | Age [years] | Gender | Weight [kg] | Height [m] | Body mass index [kg/m2] | Injected FDG activity [MBq] | Activity concentration [kg/MBq] | Diagnosis | Lesions (SUVmax) | # lesions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | 8 | M | 29 | 1.3 | 16.2 | 136 | 4.68 | Stage 1 Hodgkins lymphoma | Cervical level 2 lymph nodes bilaterally, left (2.1) and right (1.7) | 2 |
| P2 | 8 | M | 26.7 | 1.3 | 16.6 | 124 | 4.64 | Cardiac myxofibrosarcoma | Tumour surrounding aortic valve | 1 |
| P3 | 15 | F | 48.9 | 1.6 | 19.6 | 188 | 3.85 | Giant cell tumour of the right maxilla | Giant cell tumour right maxilla (2) | 1 |
| P4 | 17 | F | 70.2 | 1.7 | 24.0 | 210 | 2.99 | Metastatic osteosarcoma | Left inguinal lymph nodes (2.4), left external iliac node (2.8) | 2 |
| P5 | 6 | F | 21.4 | 1.1 | 17.1 | 102 | 4.77 | Post lung transplant lymphoma | Left hilum (3.2), left lung mid zone (3) | 2 |
| P6 | 17 | M | 77.4 | 1.9 | 21.4 | 205 | 2.65 | Burkitts lymphoma | - | - |
| P7 | 15 | M | 57.6 | 1.7 | 21.2 | 185 | 3.20 | Osteoblastic osteosarcoma | Right humerus (10.2), right iliac crest anteriorly (5.5), sixth left rib posteriorly (3) | 3 |
| P8 | 15 | M | 49.4 | 1.7 | 18.1 | 172 | 3.48 | Burkitts Lymphoma | The cervical lymph nodes (2), left axilla node (2.1) | 2 |
| P9 | 15 | F | 46.4 | 1.5 | 19.6 | 179 | 3.85 | Sarcoma of chest wall | the right lung pleural Thickening (2.2), the right lobe of liver (5.4) | 2 |
| P10 | 14 | F | 70.5 | 1.7 | 25.9 | 201 | 2.85 | Ewing sarcoma | Costal elements of S2 and S3 (8.9), T9 vertebral lesion (13.9), L4 vertebra (4.2) | 3 |
| P11 | 18 | M | 44.7 | 1.7 | 14.9 | 159 | 3.57 | Hepatcellular carcinoma | - | - |
| P12 | 10 | M | 29.7 | 1.4 | 15.8 | 121 | 4.06 | Osteosarcoma | Cervical lymph nodes | 1 |
| P13 | 14 | M | 69 | 1.7 | 22.8 | 195 | 2.83 | Burkitts lymphoma | Thymus | 1 |
| P14 | 15 | F | 60.1 | 1.6 | 24.7 | 208 | 3.46 | Hodgkins lymphoma | Right axillary nodes (2.3 - 3.4) and in the right supraclavicular node (3.6) | 2 |
| P15 | 13 | F | 73.8 | 1.7 | 25.2 | 216 | 2.92 | Osteosarcoma | Right inguinal lymph node (7.4), right external iliac lymph nodes anterior node (5.4) and posterior pelvic sidewall node (6.6) | 3 |
| P16 | 12 | M | 44.1 | 1.3 | 28.2 | 148 | 3.37 | Prune Belly syndrome with renal impairement | Large bovel | 1 |
| P17 | 6 | F | 23.7 | 1.2 | 17.3 | 93 | 3.92 | LCH | - | - |
| P18 | 15 | M | 50.1 | 1.8 | 15.6 | 177 | 3.54 | Hodgkins disease IIa | - | - |
| P19 | 15 | M | 65.6 | 1.8 | 19.4 | 211 | 3.22 | Lymphoma | - | - |
| P20 | 13 | M | 43.3 | 1.6 | 17.3 | 160 | 3.70 | Arthritis | - | - |
| P21 | 16 | F | 69.6 | 1.7 | 25.6 | 197 | 2.84 | Hodgkins lymphoma | - | - |
| P22 | 12 | M | 46.8 | 1.7 | 17.2 | 184 | 3.94 | Osteosarcoma (right distal femur) | The left lung- apical left lung (2.7), left lower pleural based anterior lesion(2.7) and at the left hilum (2) and right lung anterior cardiophrenic lesion (2.6), right femur and prosthesis(4.2), | 2 |
| P23 | 7 | F | 21 | 1.3 | 12.6 | 106 | 5.04 | B-cell lymphoblastic lymphom | - | - |
| P24 | 7 | M | 26.6 | 1.3 | 14.8 | 110 | 4.12 | RMS left flexor hallicus longus muscle | Left calf flexor hallucis longus (2.3) | 1 |
| P25 | 12 | F | 32 | 1.4 | 16.8 | 118 | 3.69 | Parietal lesion, the left lateral clavicle (2) | 1 | |
| P26 | 4 | M | 21 | 1.1 | 19.0 | 106 | 5.06 | LCH right mastoid | - | - |
| P27 | 2 | F | 10 | 0.8 | 16.0 | 58 | 5.81 | LCH with multi-system, multifocal disease | Left proximal femur (2.6), left proximal humerus (1.43) | 2 |
| P28 | 3 | M | 16.9 | 1.0 | 15.9 | 87 | 5.17 | LCH | - | - |
| P29 | 17 | M | 51.9 | 1.8 | 16.8 | 173 | 3.34 | Osteosarcoma | C2 left cervical mass (6.7), T4 vertebral body (4.8) and right proximal humerus (5) | 3 |
Fig. 1.Convergence analyses of the applied image reconstruction techniques. Every data point corresponds to one iteration (1–8) with 14 subsets. Different lesions of selected patients were evaluated: (a–d) lesion in the left hilum (Patient 21), (b–e) lung tumour (Patient 21), (c–f) tumour located in the humerus (Patient 23). For the non-TOF reconstruction (blue, OSEM only, and yellow, PSF) 5 iterations with 14 subsets were selected, while 3 iterations with 14 subsets were chosen for TOF reconstructions (green , TOF, and red, PSF+TOF).
Fig. 2.CNR gain of the 35 analysed tumours as a function of the BMI at all the count levels: 100, 75, 50, 35, 20 and 10% (a–f) of the original counts. Empty symbols correspond to OSEM CNR gain (OSEM only vs. TOF) and solid symbols to the PSF CNR gain (PSF vs. PSF+TOF). The gain in the CNR is lower when PSF is included in the reconstructions. The trend is shown as a linear regression with solid lines for PSF CNR gain reconstructions and dashed line for the OSEM CNR gain.
Fig. 3.SNR gain, measured in the liver as a function of the BMI at all the count levels: 100, 75, 50, 35, 20 and 10% (a–f) of the original counts. Empty symbols correspond to OSEM SNR gain (OSEM only vs. TOF) and solid symbols to the PSF SNR gain (PSF vs. PSF+TOF). The gain in the SNR is higher when PSF is included in the reconstructions. The trend is shown as a linear regression with solid lines for PSF SNR gain reconstructions and dashed line for the OSEM SNR gain.
Fig. 4.Comparison of the reconstructed images using OSEM only (blue), TOF (green), PSF (yellow) and PSF+TOF (red) at different count levels (100%, 75%, 50%, 35%, 20% and 10%). The images show a patient P21 (6-y/o, 21kg, BMI 17) with multiple lung tumours indicated with the arrows. No visual difference can be seen between the 100% and 75% images.
Fig. 5.Bar plots of the mean values and standard deviations of the clinical readings for each reader at different count levels (50%, 75% and 100%) for the four quality questions.
Mean score and standard deviations for each of the 4 quality questions averaged across 3 readers and combined score for all questions, at different count levels. For each question, the mean scores for 50% and 100% and 75% and 100% were compared. The coefficient of correlation (r) and the corresponding p values reported (GP: 0.1234 (ns), 0.0332 (*), 0.0021 (**), 0.0002 (***), < 0.0001 (****))
| Mean (Standard deviation) | Correlation coefficient (r) | Significantly different? | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 % | 75 % | 100 % | 50% vs 100% | 75% vs 100% | 50% vs 100% | 75% vs 100% | |
| Image quality | 3.5 (0.6) | 3.7 (0.7) | 3.6 (0.7) | 0.53 | 0.65 | 0.003** | 0.0002*** |
| Noise | 3.1 (0.6) | 3.5 (0.7) | 3.4 (0.6) | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.001*** | 0.001*** |
| Image smoothness | 3.5 (0.6) | 3.6 (0.7) | 3.4 (0.6) | 0.57 | 0.75 | 0.0012** | < 0.0001**** |
| Lesion detectability | 3.5 (0.5) | 3.7 (0.6) | 3.6 (0.6) | 0.47 | 0.65 | 0.0097** | 0.0001*** |
| All | 3.4 (0.9) | 3.6 (0.9) | 3.5 (0.9) | 0.54 | 0.66 | < 0.0001**** | < 0.0001**** |
Calculated coefficients of variation (r) and corresponding p values (GP: 0.1234 (ns), 0.0332 (*), 0.0021 (**), 0.0002 (***), < 0.0001 (****)) for each question for the individual clinical readers. Slight correlation was calculated for reader 1 and no correlation has been observed for reader 3
| Reader #1 | Reader #2 | Reader #3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50% vs 100% | 75% vs 100% | 50% vs 100% | 75% vs 100% | 50% vs 100% | 75% vs 100% | |
| Coefficient of correlation (r) | ||||||
| Image quality | 0.66 | 0.43 | 0.25 | 0.41 | −0.06 | 0.37 |
| Noise | 0.57 | 0.33 | 0.26 | 0.50 | −0.08 | 0.06 |
| Image smoothness | 0.31 | 0.33 | 0.36 | 0.40 | 0.00 | −0.06 |
| Lesion detectability | 0.54 | 0.58 | 0.24 | 0.42 | −0.05 | 0.22 |
| Image quality | 0.0001*** | 0.0201* | 0.1861 | 0.0276* | 0.7499 | 0.0494* |
| Noise | 0.0012** | 0.0797 | 0.1748 | 0.0057** | 0.6848 | 0.7459 |
| Image smoothness | 0.1038 | 0.0790 | 0.0526 | 0.0311* | > 0.9999 | 0.7398 |
| Lesion detectability | 0.0025** | 0.0009*** | 0.2039 | 0.0216* | 0.7791 | 0.2423 |
Fig. 6.Comparison of the injected activity levels to the EANM recommendations for the analysed patients. The weight-based recommended injected activities for whole-body [18F]FDG imaging are shown as blue bars in the background. The injected activity of the paediatric patients is below 75% of the recommended activity for a [18F]FDG torso examination.