Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: A simulation study

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 45, Issue 9, 2004, Pages 1519-1527

  Boellaard, Ronald ^a   Krak, Nanda C ^a   Hoekstra, Otto S ^a   Lammertsma, Adriaan A ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Image resolution; Noise; Region of interest; Response monitoring; Standard uptake value

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RADIOISOTOPE;

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DRUG UPTAKE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; NOISE; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSE VARIABLE; SIMULATION; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVALUATION; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; REFERENCE VALUE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCINTISCANNING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; THORAX TUMOR; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; VALIDATION STUDY;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RADIOISOTOPES; REFERENCE VALUES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES; THORACIC NEOPLASMS; TOMOGRAPHY, EMISSION-COMPUTED;

EID: 6944235697     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Aoki J, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, et al. FDG PET of primary benign and malignant bone tumors: standardized uptake value in 52 lesions. Radiology. 2001;219:774-777.
2. Aoki J, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, et al. FDG-PET for preoperative differential diagnosis between benign and malignant soft tissue masses. Skeletal Radiol. 2003;32:133-138.
3. Avril N, Bense S, Dose J, et al. PET imaging of the breast: quantitative image analysis [abstract]. J Nucl Med. 1996;37(suppl):99P.
4. Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Griffeth LK, et al. Benign versus malignant intraosseous lesions: discrimination by means of PET with 2-[F-18]fluoro-2- deoxy-D-glucose. Radiology. 1996;200:243-247.
5. Hoekstra CJ, Paglianiti I, Hoekstra OS, et al. Monitoring response to therapy in cancer using [F-18]-2-fluouo-2-deoxy-D-glucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:731-743.
6. 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1304-1309.
7. Hubner KF, Buonocore E, Gould HR, et al. Differentiating benign from malignant lung lesions using "quantitative" parameters of FDG PET images. Clin Nucl Med. 1996;21:941-949.
8. Krak NC, van der Hoeven JJM, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JWR, van der Wall E, Lammertsma AA. Measuring [F-18]FDG uptake in breast cancer during chemotherapy: comparison of analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:674-681.
9. Jansson T, Westlin JE, Ahlstrom H, Lilja A, Langstrom B, Bergh J. Positron emission tomography studies in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic breast-cancer: a method for early therapy evaluation. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:1470-1477.
10. Wahl RL, Zasadny K, Helvie M, Hutchins GD, Weber B, Cody R. Metabolic monitoring of breast-cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:2101-2111.
11. Avril N, Bense S, Ziegler SI, et al. Breast imaging with fluorine-18-FDG PET: quantitative image analysis. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:1186-1191.
12. Graham MM, Peterson LM, Hayward RM. Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake. Nucl Med Biol. 2000;27:647-655.
13. Kole AC, Nieweg OE, Pruim J, et al. Standardized uptake value and quantification of metabolism for breast cancer imaging with FDG and L-[1-C-11]tyrosine PET. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:692-696.
14. Lee JR, Madsen MT, Bushnel D, Menda Y. A threshold method to improve standardized uptake value reproducibility. Nucl Med Commun. 2000;21:685-690.
15. Madsen MT, Lee JR, Bushnell DL, Menda Y. Standard uptake values using a fixed region threshold [abstract]. J Nucl Med. 2000;41(suppl):182P.
16. Weber WA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R, Hanauske AR, Schwaiger M. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1771-1777.
17. Akhurst T, Erdi Y, MacApinlac H, Humm J, Yeung H, Larson SM. A comparison of reconstruction algorithms with FDG-PET: iterative reconstruction segmented attenuation correction (IRSAC) allows greater lesion detectability than filtered back projection (FBP) [abstract]. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26:1161.
18. 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.
19. Bruckbauer T, Casey M, Valk PE, Rao J, Finley BR, Farboud B. Optimizing 3D whole body acquisition for oncologic imaging on the ECAT ACCEL LSO PET system [abstract]. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:1065.
20. Etchebehere ECSC, Macapinlac HA, Gonen M, et al. Qualitative and quantitative comparison between images obtained with filtered back projection and iterative reconstruction in prostate cancer lesions on F-18-FDG PET. Quart J Nucl Med. 2002;46:122-130.
21. Falen SW, Ivanovic M, Venkataraman S. Standard uptake value analysis: evaluation of acquisition and processing parameters for PET [abstract]. Mol Imaging Biol. 2003;5:106.
22. Hickeson M, Yun MJ, Matthies A, et al. Use of a corrected standardized uptake value based on the lesion size on CT permits accurate characterization of lung nodules on FDG-PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1639-1647.
23. Lartizien C, Kinahan PE, Swensson R, et al. Evaluating image reconstruction methods for tumor detection in 3-dimensional whole-body PET oncology imaging. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:276-290.
24. 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.
25. Paul AK, Tatsumi M, Yutani K, Fujino K, Hashikawa K, Nishimura T. Effects of iterative reconstruction on image contrast and lesion detection in gamma camera coincidence imaging in lung and breast cancers. Nucl Med Commun. 2002;23:103-110.
26. Adam LE, Zaers J, Ostertag H, Trojan H, Bellemann ME, Brix G. Performance evaluation of the whole-body PET scanner ECAT EXACT HR+ following the IEC standard. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1997;44:1172-1179.
27. Brix G, Zaers J, Adam LE, et al. Performance evaluation of a whole-body PET scanner using the NEMA protocol. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:1614-1623.
28. Strother SC, Casey ME, Hoffman EJ. Measuring PET scanner sensitivity: relating count rates to image signal-to-noise ratios using noise equivalent counts. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1990;37:783-788.
29. Minn H, Zasadny KR, Quint LE, Wahl RL. Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake at PET. Radiology. 1995;196:167-173.
30. Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3495-3502.
31. Keyes JW Jr. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1836-1839.
32. Thie JA, Hubner KF, Smith GT. The diagnostic utility of the lognormal behavior of PET standardized uptake values in tumors. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1664-1672.