SUVref: Reducing reconstruction-dependent variation in PET SUV

EJNMMI Research

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 1-11

  Kelly, Matthew D ^a   Declerck, Jerome M ^a  

^a Siemens plc   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

FDG; PERCIST; PET; Reconstruction; SUV

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; PHANTOM; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; REFERENCE STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUE; SYSTEMATIC ERROR;

EID: 84872958944     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2191219X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2191-219X-1-16     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA, From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors. J Nucl Med 2009, 50:122S-150S.
2. Huang H: Anatomy of SUV. Nucl Med and Biol 2000, 27:643-646.
3. Jaskowiak CJ, Bianco JA, Perlman SB, Fine JP: Influence of Reconstruction Iterations on 18 F-FDG PET/CT Standardized Uptake Values. J Nucl Med 2005, 46:424-428.
4. Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, Oyen WJG, Kotzerke J, Hoekstra OS, Pruim J, Marsden PK, Tatsch K, Hoekstra CK, Visser EP, Arends B, Verzijlbergen FJ, Zijlstra JM, Comans EFI, Lammertsma AA, Paans AM, Willemsen AT, Beyer T, Bockisch A, Schaefer-Prokop C, Delbeke D, Baum RP, Chiti A, Krause BJ: 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.
5. Boellaard R, Oyen WJG, Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Visser EP, Willemsen AT, Arends B, Verzijlbergen FJ, Zijlstra J, Paans AM, Comans EF, Pruim J: The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008, 35:2320-2333.
6. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-2007. Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs. NEMA 2007.
7. Weber WA, Figlin R: Monitoring cancer treatment with PET/CT: Does it make a difference? J Nucl Med 2007, 48:36S-44S.
8. Joshi A, Koeppe RA, Fessler JA: Reducing between scanner differences in multi-centre PET studies. NeuroImage 2009, 49:154-159.
9. Kadrmas DJ, Casey ME, Conti M, Jakoby BW, Lois C, Townsend DW: Impact of Time-of-Flight on PET Tumor Detection. J Nucl Med 2009, 50:1315-1323.
10. Panin V, Kehren F, Michel C, Casey M: Fully 3-D PET Reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2007, 25:907-921.
11. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, Pruim J, Price P: Measurement of Clinical and Subclinical Tumour Response using [18 F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and Positron Emission Tomography: Review and 1999 EORTC Recommendations. Eur J Cancer 1999, 35:1773-1782.
12. Kadrmas DJ, Casey ME, Conti M: Impact of Time-of-Flight on PET Tumour Detection. J Nucl Med 2009, 50:1315-1323.
13. Boellaard R, Krak N, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA: 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.