Clinical implications of different image reconstruction parameters for interpretation of whole-body PET studies in cancer patients

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 45, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 559-566

  Schöder, Heiko ^a   Erdi, Yusuf E ^a   Chao, Kenneth ^a   Gonen, Mithat ^a   Larson, Steven M ^a   Yeung, Henry W D ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

18F FDG; Cancer; Image reconstruction; PET; Standardized uptake value

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOACCUMULATION; BLADDER; CANCER PATIENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DRUG UPTAKE; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INFRARED SPECTROPHOTOMETRY; LIVER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TUMOR; ALGORITHM; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCINTISCANNING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VALIDATION STUDY; WHOLE BODY COUNTING;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, EMISSION-COMPUTED; WHOLE-BODY COUNTING;

EID: 2542418242     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Delbeke D. Oncological applications of FDG PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1706-1715.
2. Czernin J, Phelps ME. Positron emission tomography scanning: current and future applications. Annu Rev Med. 2002;53:89-112.
3. Knesaurek K, Machac J, Vallabhajosula S, Buchsbaum MS. A new iterative reconstruction technique for attenuation correction in high-resolution positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med. 1996;23:656-661.
4. Lonneux M, Borbath I, Bol A, et al. Attenuation correction in whole-body FDG oncological studies: the role of statistical reconstruction. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26:591-598.
5. Riddell C, Carson RE, Carrasquillo JA, et al. Noise reduction in oncology FDG PET images by iterative reconstruction: a quantitative assessment. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1316-1323.
6. Ahuja V, Coleman RE, Herndon J, Patz EF Jr. The prognostic significance of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Cancer. 1998;83:918-924.
7. Romer W, Hanauske AR, Ziegler S, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood. 1998;91:4464-4471.
8. 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose- positron emission tomography scan in non-small-cell lung cancer: an analysis of 125 cases - Leuven Lung Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:3201-3206.
9. Ramos CD, Erdi YE, Gonen M, et al. FDG-PET standardized uptake values in normal anatomical structures using iterative reconstruction segmented attenuation correction and filtered back-projection. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:155-164.
10. Boellaard R, van Lingen A, Lammertsma AA. Experimental and clinical evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) in dynamic PET: quantitative characteristics and effects on kinetic modeling. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:808-817.
11. 18F]FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:1326-1335.
12. Weber WA, Ott K, Becker K, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction by metabolic imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3058-3065.
13. Patz EF Jr, Lowe VJ, Hoffman JM, et al. Focal pulmonary abnormalities: evaluation with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET scanning. Radiology. 1993;188:487-490.
14. Lowe VJ, Fletcher JW, Gobar L, et al. Prospective investigation of positron emission tomography in lung nodules. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:1075-1084.
15. Erdi YE, Mawlawi O, Larson SM, et al. Segmentation of lung lesion volume by adaptive positron emission tomography image thresholding. Cancer. 1997;80:2505-2509.
16. Shepp L, Vardi Y. Maximum likelihood reconstruction for emission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1982;MI-2:113-122.
17. Hudson H, Larkin R. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994;14:61-72.
18. Hochberg Y. A sharper Bonferoni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika. 1988;75:800-802.
19. Akhurst T, Erdi Y, Colsher J, et al. A comparison of reconstruction algorithms with FDG PET: iterative reconstruction segmented attenuation correction (IRSAC) allows greater detectability than filtered back projection [abstract]. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26:1027.
20. Dahlbom M, Hoffman EJ, Hoh CK, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography. Part I. Methods and performance characteristics. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:1191-1199.
21. 18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations-European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773-1782.
22. Keyes JW Jr. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1836-1839.
23. Huang SC. Anatomy of SUV: standardized uptake value. Nucl Med Biol. 2000;27:643-646.
24. Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology. 1993;189:847-850.
25. Yeung HW, Sanches A, Squire OD, Macapinlac HA, Larson SM, Erdi YE. Standardized uptake value in pediatric patients: an investigation to determine the optimum measurement parameter. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:61-66.
26. 18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4199-4208.