Impact of point spread function reconstruction on thoracic lymph node staging with 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer

Clinical Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 37, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 971-976

  Lasnon, Charline ^a   Hicks, Rodney J ^b   Beauregard, Jean Mathieu ^c   Milner, Alvin ^b   Paciencia, Maria ^a   Guizard, Anne Valérie ^d   Bardet, Stéphane ^a   Gervais, Radj ^e   Lemoel, Gabriel ^f   Zalcman, Gérard ^a   Aide, Nicolas ^a  

^a CAEN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^b PETER MACCALLUM CANCER CENTRE   (Australia)

^c LAVAL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d Cancer Registry   (France)

^e François Baclesse Cancer Centre   (France)

^f Pulmonology Department   (France)

Author keywords

FDG; non small cell lung cancer; PET CT; PSF reconstruction; staging

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ADULT; AGED; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; LYMPH NODE STAGING; MALE; ORDERED SUBSET EXPECTATION MAXIMIZATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LUNG NEOPLASMS; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THORAX;

EID: 84866315253     PISSN: 03639762     EISSN: 15360229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e318251e3d1     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Lv YL, Yuan DM, Wang K, et al. Diagnostic performance of integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography for mediastinal lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer: A bivariate systematic review and metaanalysis. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6:1350-1358.
2. Hicks RJ, Kalff V, MacManus MP, et al. 18F-FDG PET provides high-impact and powerful prognostic stratification in staging newly diagnosed nonYsmall cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1596-1604.
3. Seltzer MA, Yap CS, Silverman DH, et al. The impact of PET on the management of lung cancer: The referring physician's perspective. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:752-756.
4. Mayor S. NICE issues guidance for diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. BMJ. 2005;330:439.
5. Arita T, Kuramitsu T, Kawamura M, et al. Bronchogenic carcinoma: Incidence of metastases to normal sized lymph nodes. Thorax. 1995;50:1267-1269.
6. Hofman MS, Smeeton NC, Rankin SC, et al. Observer variation in FDG PETCT for staging of nonYsmall-cell lung carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:194-199.
7. Townsend DW. Dual-modality imaging: Combining anatomy and function. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:938-955.
8. Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, et al. Staging of nonYsmall-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2500-2507.
9. Panin VY, Kehren F, Michel C, et al. Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25:907-921.
10. Pichler BJ, Wehrl HF, Judenhofer MS. Latest advances in molecular imaging instrumentation. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(suppl 2):5SY23S.
11. Aide N, Desmonts C, Beauregard JM, et al. High throughput static and dynamic small animal imaging using clinical PET/CT: Potential preclinical applications. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:991-1001.
12. Kadrmas DJ, Casey ME, Conti M, et al. Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1315-1323.
13. Watson CC. New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 3-D PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2000;47:1587-1594.
14. Kinahan PE, Hasegawa BH, Beyer T. X-rayYbased attenuation correction for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners. Sem Nucl Med. 2003;33:166-179.
15. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;8:307-310.
16. Hilson A. Bland-Altman plot. Radiology. 2004;231:604; author reply 604-605.
17. Black WC, Armstrong P. Communicating the significance of radiologic test results: The likelihood ratio. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986;147:1313-1318.
18. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. . Refining clinical diagnosis with likelihood ratios. Lancet. 2005;365:1500-1505.
19. El Fakhri G, Surti S, Trott CM, et al. Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:347-353.
20. Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, et al. Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: Experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:462-470.
21. Lois C, Jakoby BW, Long MJ, et al. An assessment of the impact of incorporating time-of-flight information into clinical PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:237-245.
22. Aide N, Kinross K, Beauregard JM, et al. A dual radiologic contrast agent protocol for 18F-FDG and 18F-FLT PET/CT imaging of mice bearing abdominal tumors. Mol Imaging Biol. 2011;13:518-525.
23. Denoyer D, Greguric I, Roselt P, et al. High-contrast PET of melanoma using 18F-MEL050, a selective probe for melanin with predominantly renal clearance. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:441-447.
24. Suwatanapongched T, Gierada DS. CTof thoracic lymph nodes. Part II: Diseases and pitfalls. Br J Radiol. 2006;79:999-1000.
25. Masuda Y, Kondo C, Matsuo Y, et al. Comparison of imaging protocols for 18FFDG PET/CT in overweight patients: Optimizing scan duration versus administered dose. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:844-848.
26. Jakoby BW, Bercier Y, Conti M, et al. Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:2375-2389.
27. Hicks RJ, Lau E, Alam NZ, et al. Imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of nonYsmall cell lung cancer. Respirology. 2007;12:165-172.
28. Herbrik M, Treffert J, Geiger B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of virtual 18F-FDG PET/CT bronchoscopy for the detection of lymph node metastases in nonYsmall cell lung cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 2011;10:1520-1525.
29. Besson F, Switsers S, Blanc-Fournier C, et al. Prospective evaluation of PET/CTwith point spread function reconstruction for axillary nodal staging in breast cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:530.