Evaluation of strategies towards harmonization of FDG PET/CT studies in multicentre trials: Comparison of scanner validation phantoms and data analysis procedures

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 40, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 1507-1515

  Makris, Nikolaos E ^a   Huisman, Marc C ^a   Kinahan, Paul E ^b   Lammertsma, Adriaan A ^a   Boellaard, Ronald ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Accreditation; Harmonization; PET CT; Quantification; Standardization

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; IMAGING PHANTOM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); PET SCANNER; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUE; VOLUME OF INTEREST;

COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ESOPHAGEAL NEOPLASMS; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; TOMOGRAPHY SCANNERS, X-RAY COMPUTED; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84885476839     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: 16197089     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-013-2465-0     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Gupta T, Master Z, Kannan S, Agarwal JP, Ghsoh-Laskar S, Rangarajan V, et al. Diagnostic performance of post-treatment FDG PET or FDG PET/CT imaging in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:2083-95.
2. Ung YC, Maziak DE, Vanderveen JA, Smith CA, Gulenchyn K, Lacchetti C, et al. 18Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1753-67.
3. Hicks RJ. Role of 18F-FDG PET in assessment of response in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:31S-42S.
4. Czernin J, Weber WA, Herschman HR. Molecular imaging in the development of cancer therapeutics. Annu Rev Med. 2006;57:99-118.
5. Frank R, Hargreaves R. Clinical biomarkers in drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003;2:566-80.
6. Weber WA. Assessing tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:1S-10S.
7. Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B, Tyndale-Hines L, Link T, Peschel C, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2651-7.
8. Stroobants S, Goeminne J, Seegers M, Dimitrijevic S, Dupont P, Nuyts J, et al. 18FDG-Positron emission tomography for the early prediction of response in advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with imatinib mesylate (Glivec). Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:2012-20.
9. Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1431-4.
10. Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:310-20.
11. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:11S-20S.
12. Kinahan PE, Fletcher JW. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2010;31:496-505.
13. Boellaard R, Krak NC, 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;45:1519-27.
14. Fahey FH, Kinahan PE, Doot RK, Kocak M, Thurston H, Poussaint TY. Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium. Med Phys. 2010;37:3660-6.
15. 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;52:303-10.
16. Graham MM, Badawi RD, Wahl RL. Variations in PET/CT methodology for oncologic imaging at U.S. academic medical centers: an imaging response assessment team survey. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:311-7.
17. Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, 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.
18. Kelly MD, Declerck JM. SUVref: reducing reconstruction-dependent variation in PET SUV. EJNMMI Res. 2011;1:16.
19. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NEMA standards publication NU 2-2001: performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. Rosslyn: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2001.
20. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. PET phantom instructions for evaluation of PET image quality. http://www.aapm.org/meetings/amos2/pdf/49- 14437-10688-860.pdf. College Park, MD: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2012. Accessed 24 May 2013
21. Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME, Perkins AE, Kolthammer J, Karp JS. Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:471-80.
22. 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 Suppl 1:122S-50S.
23. Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, van Velden FH, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R. Impact of [18F]FDG PET imaging parameters on automatic tumour delineation: need for improved tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:2136-44.
24. Lodge MA, Chaudhry MA, Wahl RL. Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1041-7.
25. Doot RK, Scheuermann JS, Christian PE, Karp JS, Kinahan PE. Instrumentation factors affecting variance and bias of quantifying tracer uptake with PET/CT. Med Phys. 2010;37:6035-46.
26. Vanderhoek M, Perlman SB, Jeraj R. Impact of the definition of peak standardized uptake value on quantification of treatment response. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:4-11.