Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET

Clinical Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 103-109

  Prieto, Elena ^a   Domínguez Prado, Inés ^a   García Velloso, María José ^a   Peñuelas, Iván ^a   Richter, José Ángel ^a   Martí Climent, Josep Maria ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY CLINIC OF NAVARRA   (Spain)

Author keywords

oncology; PET; quantification; SUV

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; IN VIVO STUDY; LUNG CANCER; PHANTOM; WHOLE BODY CT; WHOLE BODY PET;

BIOLOGICAL TRANSPORT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LUNG NEOPLASMS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; TIME FACTORS; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

EID: 84872919693     PISSN: 03639762     EISSN: 15360229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e318279b9df     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. 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 (Pubitemid 351355215)
2. Vriens D, Visser EP, de Geus-Oei LF, et al. Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1408-1425
3. 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 (Pubitemid 351355213)
4. Rapisarda E, Bettinardi V, Thielemans K, et al. Image-based point spread function implementation in a fully 3D OSEM reconstruction algorithm for PET. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:4131
5. Jakoby B, 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
6. Boellaard R. Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:93SY100S.
7. Joshi A, Koeppe RA, Fessler JA. Reducing between scanner differences in multi-center PET studies. Neuroimage. 2009;46:154-159
8. Kelly MD, Declerck JM. SUVref: Reducing reconstruction-dependent variation in PET SUV. EJNMMI Res. 2011;1:16
9. Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: Version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181-200
10. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-2007. Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. Rosslyn, VA: NEMA; 2007
11. Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45:255-268
12. Beyer T, Czernin J, Freudenberg LS. Variations in clinical PET/CT operations: Results of an international survey of active PET/CT users. J Nucl Med. 2011; 52:303-310
13. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, et al. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: A simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1519-1527 (Pubitemid 47618506)