Overview of positron emission tomography, hybrid positron emission tomography instrumentation, and positron emission tomography quantification

Journal of Thoracic Imaging

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 4-10

  Kwee, Thomas C ^a   Torigian, Drew A ^b   Alavi, Abass ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

instrumentation; molecular imaging; positron emission tomography; quantification

Indexed keywords

CARBON 11; COPPER 64; FLUORINE 18; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; GALLIUM 68; NITROGEN 13; OXYGEN 15; RUBIDIUM 82;

COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; ISOTOPE LABELING; MOLECULAR IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHOTON; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUANTITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; REVIEW;

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; THORACIC DISEASES;

EID: 84871805809     PISSN: 08835993     EISSN: 15360237     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RTI.0b013e31827882d9     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. Margulis AR. Molecular imaging: love it or lose it. Radiology. 2012;264:5.
2. Margolis DJ, Hoffman JM, Herfkens RJ, et al. Molecular imaging techniques in body imaging. Radiology. 2007;245: 333-356.
3. Basu S, Kwee TC, Surti S, et al. Fundamentals of PET and PET/CT imaging. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011;1228:1-18.
4. Li Z, Conti PS. Radiopharmaceutical chemistry for positron emission tomography. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2010;62:1031-1051.
5. Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology. 2004;231:305-332.
6. Lonsdale MN, Beyer T. Dual-modality PET/CT instrumentation-today and tomorrow. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73:452-460.
7. Townsend DW. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Semin Nucl Med. 2008;38:152-166.
8. Townsend DW. Dual-modality imaging: combining anatomy and function. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:938-955.
9. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:480-508.
10. Basu S, Alavi A. Unparalleled contribution of 18F-FDG PET to medicine over 3 decades. J Nucl Med. 2008;49: 17N-21N, 37N.
11. Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME, et al. Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med. 2007;48: 471-480.
12. 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.
13. Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1147-1157.
14. Murray I, Kalemis A, Glennon J, et al. Time-of-flight PET/CT using low-activity protocols: potential implications for cancer therapy monitoring. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37: 1643-1653.
15. Etard C, Celier D, Roch P, et al. National survey of patient doses from whole-body FDG-PET examinations in France in 2011. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2012. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncs066.
16. Kwee TC, Basu S, Saboury B, et al. Functional oncoimaging techniques with potential clinical applications. Front Biosci (Elite Ed). 2012;4:1081-1096.
17. Torigian DA, Huang SS, Houseni M, et al. Functional imaging of cancer with emphasis on molecular techniques. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:206-224.
18. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1369-1379.
19. Mawlawi O, Townsend DW. Multimodality imaging: an update on PET/CT technology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36(suppl 1):S15-S29.
20. Kwee TC, Takahara T, Klomp DW, et al. Cancer imaging: novel concepts in clinical magnetic resonance imaging. J Intern Med. 2010;268:120-132.
21. Eichinger M, Heussel CP, Kauczor HU, et al. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in cystic fibrosis lung disease. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;32:1370-1378.
22. Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, et al. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25:900-909.
23. Torigian DA, Zaidi H, Kwee TC, et al. PET/MRI-Technical aspects and potential clinical applications. Radiology. 2012. In press.
24. Kuhl CK. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology. 2007;244:672-691.
25. Vanel D, Dromain C, Tardivon A. MRI of bone marrow disorders. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:224-229.
26. Finn JP, Nael K, Deshpande V, et al. Cardiac MR imaging: state of the technology. Radiology. 2006;241:338-354.
27. Schwenzer NF, Schraml C, Müller M, et al. Pulmonary lesion assessment: comparison of whole-Body hybrid MR/PET and PET/CT imaging-pilot study. Radiology. 2012;264:551-558.
28. Wielpütz M, Kauczor HU. MRI of the lung: state of the art. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2012;18:344-353.
29. Helm EJ, Matin TN, Gleeson FV. Imaging of the pleura. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;32:1275-1286.
30. Landwehr P, Schulte O, Lackner K. MR imaging of the chest: mediastinum and chest wall. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:1737-1744.
31. Liu J, Yang X, Li F, et al. Preliminary study of whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging in detecting pulmonary metastatic lesions from clear cell renal cell carcinoma: comparison with CT. Acta Radiol. 2011;52:954-963.
32. Nagle SK, Nackos JS, Schiebler ML, et al. Ultrashort echo time MRI of lung pathology in humans. In: Presentation of the ISMRM 20th Annual Meeting, Melbourne, Australia, May 5-10, 2012.
33. Buchbender C, Heusner TA, Lauenstein TC, et al. Oncologic PET/MRI, part 1: tumors of the brain, head and neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:928-938.
34. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1): 11S-20S.
35. Hoekstra CJ, Paglianiti I, Hoekstra OS, et al. Monitoring response to therapy in cancer using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-Dglucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27: 731-743.
36. Basu S, Zaidi H, Houseni M, et al. Novel quantitative techniques for assessing regional and global function and structure based on modern imaging modalities: Implications for normal variation, aging and diseased states. Semin Nucl Med. 2007;37:223-239.
37. Huang SC. Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value. Nucl Med Biol. 2000;27:643-646.
38. Keyes JW Jr. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1836-1839.
39. Basu S, Kwee TC, Torigian D, et al. Suboptimal and inadequate quantification: an alarming crisis in medical applications of PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38: 1381-1382.
40. Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, et al. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:310-320.
41. Torigian DA, Lopez RF, Alapati S, et al. Feasibility and performance of novel software to quantify metabolically active volumes and 3D partial volume corrected SUV and metabolic volumetric products of spinal bone marrow metastases on 18FFDG-PET/CT. Hell J Nucl Med. 2011;14:8-14.
42. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. 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. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773-1782.
43. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, et al. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1):122S-150S.
44. Costelloe CM, Chuang HH, Madewell JE, et al. Cancer Response Criteria and Bone Metastases: RECIST 1.1, MDA and PERCIST. J Cancer. 2010;1:80-92.
45. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228-247.
46. Yanagawa M, Tatsumi M, Miyata H, et al. Evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal cancer: PET response criteria in solid tumors versus response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2012;53: 872-880.
47. Alavi A, Newberg AB, Souder E, et al. Quantitative analysis of PET and MRI data in normal aging and Alzheimer's disease: atrophy weighted total brain metabolism and absolute whole brain metabolism as reliable discriminators. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:1681-1687.
48. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2:159-171.
49. Bural GG, Torigian DA, Chamroonrat W, et al. Quantitative assessment of the atherosclerotic burden of the aorta by combined FDG-PET and CT image analysis: a new concept. Nucl Med Biol. 2006;33:1037-1043.
50. Bural GG, Torigian DA, Burke A, et al. Quantitative assessment of the hepatic metabolic volume product in patients with diffuse hepatic steatosis and normal controls through use of FDG-PET and MR imaging: a novel concept. Mol Imaging Biol. 2010;12:233-239.
51. Basu S, Saboury B, Torigian DA, et al. Current evidence base of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the clinical management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: emerging significance of image segmentation and global disease assessment. Mol Imaging Biol. 2011;13:801-811.
52. Hofheinz F, Potzsch C, Oehme L, et al. Automatic volume delineation in oncological PET. Evaluation of a dedicated software tool and comparison with manual delineation in clinical data sets. Nuklearmedizin. 2012;51:9-16.
53. Hofheinz F, Pötzsch C, van den Hoff J. Quantitative 3D ROI delineation in PET: algorithm and validation. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:407P.
54. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:932-945.
55. Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Cabrejas ML, et al. Recovery correction for quantitation in emission tomography: a feasibility study. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:161-169.
56. Hickeson M, Yun M, 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 FDGPET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1639-1647.
57. Lubberink M, Tolmachev V, Widström C, et al. 110mIn-DTPA-D-Phe1- octreotide for imaging of neuroendocrine tumors with PET. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1391-1397.
58. Srinivas SM, Dhurairaj T, Basu S, et al. A recovery coefficient method for partial volume correction of PET images. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23:341-348.
59. Hoetjes NJ, van Velden FH, Hoekstra OS, et al. Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1679-1687.
60. Hofheinz F, Langner J, Petr J, et al. A method for model-free partial volume correction in oncological PET. EJNMMI Res. 2012;2:16.