Lesion concordance, image quality and artefacts in PET/CT: Results of a multicenter study

NuklearMedizin

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 129-137

  Stergar, Hrvoje ^a   Krause, B J ^b   Eschmann, S M ^c   Juergens, K U ^d   Kuehl, H ^a   Pfannenberg, A C ^c   Stollfuss, J ^b   Weckesser, M ^d   Bockisch, A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ESSEN   (Germany)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cancer; Computed tomography; Diagnostic imaging; Multicenter study; PET CT; Positron emission tomography

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ABDOMINAL DISEASE; ADULT; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; BODY REGIONS; BREATHING; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; DRUG UPTAKE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; LESIONS AND DEFECTS; LOW DRUG DOSE; LUNG LESION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; METAL IMPLANTATION; MOTION; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT POSITIONING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; TOOTH IMPLANTATION; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; WHOLE BODY CT; WHOLE BODY PET; ANTIBODY SPECIFICITY; METHODOLOGY; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); PROSTHESES AND ORTHOSES; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD;

ARTIFACTS; DENTAL IMPLANTS; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MOVEMENT; ORGAN SPECIFICITY; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 77957004452     PISSN: 00295566     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3413/nukmed-0275     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Allen-Auerbach M, Yeom K, Park J et al. Standard PET/CT of the chest during shallow breathing is inadequate for comprehensive staging of lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2006; 47: 298-301. (Pubitemid 46780895)
2. An YS, Sheen SS, Oh YJ et al. Nonionic intravenous contrast agent does not cause clinically significant artifacts to 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with lung cancer. Ann Nucl Med 2007; 21: 585-592.
3. Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Egelhof T et al. Focal tracer uptake: a potential artifact in contrast-enhanced dual-modality PET/CT scans. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 1339-1342.
4. Antoch G, Kuehl H, Kanja J et al. Dual-modality PET/CT scanning with negative oral contrast agent to avoid artifacts: introduction and evaluation. Radiology 2004; 230: 879-885. (Pubitemid 38252890)
5. Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H et al. Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 4357-4368. (Pubitemid 41185156)
6. Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 1200-1209. (Pubitemid 39655178)
7. Berthelsen AK, Holm S, Loft A et al. PET/CT with intravenous contrast can be used for PET attenuation correction in cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005; 32: 1167-1175. (Pubitemid 41355943)
8. Beyer T, Antoch G, Blodgett T et al. Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30: 588-596. (Pubitemid 36559838)
9. 18F-FDG PET/CT studies with combined PET/CT tomographs employing spiral CT technology with 1 to 16 detector rows. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005; 32: 1429-1439.
10. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000; 41: 1369-1379. (Pubitemid 30643379)
11. Beyer T, Weigert M, Quick HH et al. MR-based attenuation correction for torso-PET/MR imaging: pitfalls in mapping MR to CT data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35: 1142-1146.
12. Blake MA, Slattery JM, Kalra MK et al. Adrenal lesions: characterization with fused PET/CT image in patients with proved or suspected malignancy - initial experience. Radiology 2006; 238: 970-977.
13. th, Blodgett TM, Zimmer LA et al. Head and neck malignancy: is PET/CT more accurate than PET or CT alone? Radiology 2005; 235: 580-586.
14. 18F-FDG. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 1116-1123.
15. Castellucci P, Perrone AM, Picchio M et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in characterizing ovarian lesions and staging ovarian cancer: correlation with transvaginal ultrasonography, computed tomography, and histology. Nucl Med Commun 2007; 28: 589-595. (Pubitemid 47067045)
16. 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with liver metastases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007; 34: 1906-1914.
17. Cohade C, Osman M, Nakamoto Y et al. Initial experience with oral contrast in PET/CT: phantom and clinical studies. J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 412-416. (Pubitemid 39586018)
18. El Naqa I, Low DA, Bradley JD et al. Deblurring of breathing motion artifacts in thoracic PET images by deconvolution methods. Med Phys 2006; 33: 3587-3600. (Pubitemid 44505085)
19. Farma JM, Santillan AA, Melis M et al. PET/CT fusion scan enhances CT staging in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008: 15: 2465-2471.
20. 18F-FDG PET and CT in the characterization of solitary pulmonary nodules. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 179-185.
21. Goerres GW, Hany TF, Kamel E et al. Head and neck imaging with PET and PET/CT: artefacts from dental metallic implants. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29: 367-370.
22. Goerres GW, Schmid DT, Eyrich GK. Do hardware artefacts influence the performance of head and neck PET scans in patients with oral cavity squamous cell cancer? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32: 365-371.
23. Groves AM, Kayani I, Dickson JC et al. Oral contrast medium in PET/CT: should you or shouldn't you? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005; 32: 1160-1166.
24. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Waldherr C et al. Cardiac pacemakers and central venous lines can induce focal artifacts on CT-corrected PET images. J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 290-293. (Pubitemid 47618651)
25. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2155-2161.
26. Ingui CJ, Shah NP, Oates ME. Endocrine neoplasm scintigraphy: added value of fusing SPECT/CT images compared with traditional side-by-side analysis. Clin Nucl Med 2006; 31: 665-672.
27. Jeong SY, Lee KS, Shin KM et al. Efficacy of PET/CT in the characterization of solid or partly solid solitary pulmonary nodules. Lung Cancer 2008; 61: 186-194.
28. Judenhofer MS, Catana C, Swann BK et al. PET/MR images acquired with a compact MR-compatible PET detector in a 7-T magnet. Radiology 2007; 244: 807-814. (Pubitemid 47292092)
29. Juergens KU, Oei ML, Weckesser M et al. Wholebody imaging of oncologic patients using 16-channel PET/CT. Evaluation of an i.v. contrast enhanced MDCT protocol. Nuklearmedizin 2008; 47: 30-36.
30. Kamel EM, Burger C, Buck A et al. Impact of metallic dental implants on CT-based attenuation correction in a combined PET/CT scanner. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 724-728. (Pubitemid 36790553)
31. 18F-FDG PET, in-line PET/CT, and software fusion for restaging of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 587-595.
32. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al. Performance of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer: comparison with integrated FDG-PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35: 1439-1448.
33. 18F]-FDG PET/CT. Nuklearmedizin 2008; 47: 37-42.
34. Laymon CM, Ziolko SK, Becker CR et al. Registration-based method for determining relative PET/MR left-right image orientation. Neuroimage 2008; 40: 213-216.
35. Metser U, Golan O, Levine CD et al. Tumor lesion detection: when is integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography more accurate than side-by-side interpretation of positron emission tomography and computed tomography? J Comput Assist Tomogr 2005; 29: 554-559.
36. Morimoto T, Tateishi U, Maeda T et al. Nodal status of malignant lymphoma in pelvic and retroperitoneal lymphatic pathways: Comparison of integrated PET/CT with or without contrast enhancement. Eur J Radiol 2008; 67: 508-513.
37. O JH, Yoo IeR, Kim SH et al. Clinical significance of small pulmonary nodules with little or no 18F-FDG uptake on PET/CT images of patients with non-thoracic malignancies. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 15-21.
38. 18F-FDG-PET/CT on staging and irradiation of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2009;185: 260-265.
39. Pauls S, Buck AK, Halter G et al. Performance of integrated FDG-PET/CT for differentiating benign and malignant lung lesions - results from a large prospective clinical trial. Mol Imaging Biol 2008; 10: 121-128.
40. Pevsner A, Nehmeh SA, Humm JL et al. Effect of motion on tracer activity determination in CT attenuation corrected PET images: a lung phantom study. Med Phys 2005; 32: 2358-2362. (Pubitemid 41023196)
41. Pfannenberg AC, Aschoff P, Brechtel K et al. Value of contrast-enhanced multiphase CT in combined PET/CT protocols for oncological imaging. Br J Radiol 2007; 80: 437-445. (Pubitemid 47322230)
42. Rehfeld NS, Heismann BJ, Kupferschläger J et al. Single and dual energy attenuation correction in PET/CT in the presence of iodine based contrast agents. Med Phys 2008; 35: 1959-1969. (Pubitemid 351614811)
43. Reinartz P, Wieres FJ, Schneider W et al. Side-by-side reading of PET and CT scans in oncology: which patients might profit from integrated PET/CT? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31: 1456-1461.
44. Rodríguez-Vigil B, Gómez-León N, Pinilla I et al. PET/CT in lymphoma: prospective study of enhanced full-dose PET/CT versus unenhanced low-dose PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2006; 47: 1643-1648. (Pubitemid 47545030)
45. 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging of the head and neck. An approach to metal artifact correction. Nuklearmedizin 2006; 45: 219-222.
46. 18F-FDG PET-CT evaluating solid pancreatic lesions versus endosonography, endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography with intraductal ultrasonography and abdominal ultrasound. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35: 1775-1785.
47. Stergar H, Bockisch A, Eschmann SM et al. Influence of PET/CT- introduction on PET scanning frequency and indications. Results of a multicenter study. Nuklearmedizin 2007; 46: 57-64.
48. Vogel WV, van Dalen JA, Wiering B et al. Evaluation of image registration in PET/CT of the liver and recommendations for optimized imaging. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 910-919. (Pubitemid 46909919)
49. 18F-FDG PET for detecting metastases and synchronous primary malignancies in patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Nuklearmedizin 2009; 48:192-199.
50. Wolz G, Nömayr A, Hothorn T et al. Anatomical accuracy of interactive and automated rigid registration between X-ray CT and FDG-PET. Nuklearmedizin 2007; 46: 43-48. (Pubitemid 46374432)
51. Yau YY, Chan WS, Tam YM et al. Application of intravenous contrast in PET/CT: does it really introduce significant attenuation correction error? J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 283-291.
52. 18F]fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography studies in cancer patients. Mol Imaging Biol 2005; 7: 229-235.