Literature DB >> 35029817

New standards for phantom image quality and SUV harmonization range for multicenter oncology PET studies.

Go Akamatsu1, Naoki Shimada2, Keiichi Matsumoto3, Hiromitsu Daisaki4, Kazufumi Suzuki5, Hiroshi Watabe6, Keiichi Oda7, Michio Senda8, Takashi Terauchi9, Ukihide Tateishi10.   

Abstract

Not only visual interpretation for lesion detection, staging, and characterization, but also quantitative treatment response assessment are key roles for 18F-FDG PET in oncology. In multicenter oncology PET studies, image quality standardization and SUV harmonization are essential to obtain reliable study outcomes. Standards for image quality and SUV harmonization range should be regularly updated according to progress in scanner performance. Accordingly, the first aim of this study was to propose new image quality reference levels to ensure small lesion detectability. The second aim was to propose a new SUV harmonization range and an image noise criterion to minimize the inter-scanner and intra-scanner SUV variabilities. We collected a total of 37 patterns of images from 23 recent PET/CT scanner models using the NEMA NU2 image quality phantom. PET images with various acquisition durations of 30-300 s and 1800 s were analyzed visually and quantitatively to derive visual detectability scores of the 10-mm-diameter hot sphere, noise-equivalent count (NECphantom), 10-mm sphere contrast (QH,10 mm), background variability (N10 mm), contrast-to-noise ratio (QH,10 mm/N10 mm), image noise level (CVBG), and SUVmax and SUVpeak for hot spheres (10-37 mm diameters). We calculated a reference level for each image quality metric, so that the 10-mm sphere can be visually detected. The SUV harmonization range and the image noise criterion were proposed with consideration of overshoot due to point-spread function (PSF) reconstruction. We proposed image quality reference levels as follows: QH,10 mm/N10 mm ≥ 2.5 and CVBG ≤ 14.1%. The 10th-90th percentiles in the SUV distributions were defined as the new SUV harmonization range. CVBG ≤ 10% was proposed as the image noise criterion, because the intra-scanner SUV variability significantly depended on CVBG. We proposed new image quality reference levels to ensure small lesion detectability. A new SUV harmonization range (in which PSF reconstruction is applicable) and the image noise criterion were also proposed for minimizing the SUV variabilities. Our proposed new standards will facilitate image quality standardization and SUV harmonization of multicenter oncology PET studies. The reliability of multicenter oncology PET studies will be improved by satisfying the new standards.
© 2021. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Harmonization; Image quality; PET; SUV; Standardization

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35029817     DOI: 10.1007/s12149-021-01709-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Nucl Med        ISSN: 0914-7187            Impact factor:   2.668


  73 in total

Review 1.  Oncological applications of FDG PET imaging: brain tumors, colorectal cancer, lymphoma and melanoma.

Authors:  D Delbeke
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Phase II study of cediranib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors or soft-tissue sarcoma.

Authors:  Ian Judson; Michelle Scurr; Kate Gardner; Elizabeth Barquin; Marcelo Marotti; Barbara Collins; Helen Young; Juliane M Jürgensmeier; Michael Leahy
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group.

Authors:  H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 9.162

4.  Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology.

Authors:  James W Fletcher; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Heloisa P Soares; Barry A Siegel; Val J Lowe; Gary H Lyman; R Edward Coleman; Richard Wahl; John Christopher Paschold; Norbert Avril; Lawrence H Einhorn; W Warren Suh; David Samson; Dominique Delbeke; Mark Gorman; Anthony F Shields
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2008-02-20       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 5.  Assessing tumor response to therapy.

Authors:  Wolfgang A Weber
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-04-20       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 6.  From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors.

Authors:  Richard L Wahl; Heather Jacene; Yvette Kasamon; Martin A Lodge
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 7.  Clinical applications of PET in oncology.

Authors:  Eric M Rohren; Timothy G Turkington; R Edward Coleman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-03-24       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Quantitative PET in the 2020s: a roadmap.

Authors:  Steven R Meikle; Vesna Sossi; Emilie Roncali; Simon R Cherry; Richard Banati; David Mankoff; Terry Jones; Michelle James; Julie Sutcliffe; Jinsong Ouyang; Yoann Petibon; Chao Ma; Georges El Fakhri; Suleman Surti; Joel S Karp; Ramsey D Badawi; Taiga Yamaya; Go Akamatsu; Georg Schramm; Ahmadreza Rezaei; Johan Nuyts; Roger Fulton; André Kyme; Cristina Lois; Hasan Sari; Julie Price; Ronald Boellaard; Robert Jeraj; Dale L Bailey; Enid Eslick; Kathy P Willowson; Joyita Dutta
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 4.174

Review 9.  Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies.

Authors:  James P B O'Connor; Eric O Aboagye; Judith E Adams; Hugo J W L Aerts; Sally F Barrington; Ambros J Beer; Ronald Boellaard; Sarah E Bohndiek; Michael Brady; Gina Brown; David L Buckley; Thomas L Chenevert; Laurence P Clarke; Sandra Collette; Gary J Cook; Nandita M deSouza; John C Dickson; Caroline Dive; Jeffrey L Evelhoch; Corinne Faivre-Finn; Ferdia A Gallagher; Fiona J Gilbert; Robert J Gillies; Vicky Goh; John R Griffiths; Ashley M Groves; Steve Halligan; Adrian L Harris; David J Hawkes; Otto S Hoekstra; Erich P Huang; Brian F Hutton; Edward F Jackson; Gordon C Jayson; Andrew Jones; Dow-Mu Koh; Denis Lacombe; Philippe Lambin; Nathalie Lassau; Martin O Leach; Ting-Yim Lee; Edward L Leen; Jason S Lewis; Yan Liu; Mark F Lythgoe; Prakash Manoharan; Ross J Maxwell; Kenneth A Miles; Bruno Morgan; Steve Morris; Tony Ng; Anwar R Padhani; Geoff J M Parker; Mike Partridge; Arvind P Pathak; Andrew C Peet; Shonit Punwani; Andrew R Reynolds; Simon P Robinson; Lalitha K Shankar; Ricky A Sharma; Dmitry Soloviev; Sigrid Stroobants; Daniel C Sullivan; Stuart A Taylor; Paul S Tofts; Gillian M Tozer; Marcel van Herk; Simon Walker-Samuel; James Wason; Kaye J Williams; Paul Workman; Thomas E Yankeelov; Kevin M Brindle; Lisa M McShane; Alan Jackson; John C Waterton
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 66.675

10.  First-in-human phase I trial of two schedules of OSI-930, a novel multikinase inhibitor, incorporating translational proof-of-mechanism studies.

Authors:  Timothy A Yap; Hendrik-Tobias Arkenau; D Ross Camidge; Suzanne George; Natalie J Serkova; Stephen J Gwyther; Jennifer L Spratlin; Rohit Lal; James Spicer; Nandita M Desouza; Martin O Leach; Jon Chick; Srinivasu Poondru; Ramesh Boinpally; Richard Gedrich; Katie Brock; Andrew Stephens; S Gail Eckhardt; Stan B Kaye; George Demetri; Michelle Scurr
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 12.531

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.