Evaluation of PET quantification accuracy in vivo: Comparison of measured FDG concentration in the bladder with urine samples;In-vivo-Evaluation der Quantifizierungs genauig - Keit der PET: Vergleich der gemessenen FDG-Konzentration in der Blase mit Urinproben

NuklearMedizin

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 67-77

  Maus, Jens ^a   Hofheinz, F ^a   Schramm, G ^a   Oehme, L ^b   Beuthien Baumann, B ^a,b   Lukas, M ^c   Buchert, R ^c   Steinbach, J ^a   Kotzerke, J ^b   van den Hoff, J ^a,b  

^a INSTITUTE OF ION BEAM PHYSICS AND MATERIALS RESEARCH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL CARL GUSTAV CARUS   (Germany)

^c CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Accuracy; In vivo; Multicenter; PET; QA; Quantification

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; IN VIVO STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); PARAMETERS; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUANTIFICATION ACCURACY; BLADDER; BLOOD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE FAILURE ANALYSIS; DEVICES; DIAGNOSTIC USE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; GERMANY; IMAGE QUALITY; METABOLISM; PROCEDURES; RADIOMETRY; REFERENCE VALUE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCINTISCANNING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDS; URINE;

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

CALIBRATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; GERMANY; HUMANS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOMETRY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REFERENCE VALUES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; URINARY BLADDER;

EID: 84903398976     PISSN: 00295566     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3413/Nukmed-0588-13-05     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. 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: 1519-1527.
2. 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.
3. 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med 2011; 52 (suppl): 93S-100S.
4. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 2009; 50 (suppl): 11S-20S.
5. 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med 2006; 47: 885-895.
6. 18F-FDG PET for assessment of therapy response and preoperative re-evaluation after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007; 34: 463-471.
7. 18F]fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in pediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma: analysis of a prospective multi-center trial. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4385-4391.
8. Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Wit M et al. Multicenter comparison of calibration and cross calibration of PET scanners. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 635-639.
9. Gupta K, Pawaskar A, Basu S et al. Potential role of FDG PET imaging in predicting metastatic potential and assessment of therapeutic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. Clin Nucl Med 2011; 36: 973-977.
10. 18F-FDG. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 210-214.
11. Hsu CH. A study of lesion contrast recovery for iterative PET image reconstructions versus filtered backprojection using an anthropomorphic thoracic phantom. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2002; 26: 119-127.
12. Israel O, Iosilevsky G, Front D et al. SPECT quantitation of iodine-131 concentration in phantoms and human tumors. J Nucl Med 1990; 31: 1945-1949.
13. Israel O, Keidar Z, Rubinov R et al. Quantitative bone single-photon emission computed tomography for prediction of pain relief in metastatic bone disease treated with rhenium-186 etidronate. J Nucl Med 2000; 18: 2747-2754.
14. Janssen MHM, Aerts HJWL, Ollers MC et al. Tumor delineation based on time-activity curve differences assessed with dynamic fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography in rectal cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 73: 456-465.
15. Jones SC, Alavi A, Christman D et al. The radiation dosimetry of 2 [F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-Dglucose in man. J Nucl Med 1982; 23: 613-617.
16. Kinahan PE, Karp JS. Figures of merit for comparing reconstruction algorithms with a volume-imaging PET scanner. Phys Med Biol 1994; 39: 631-642.
17. Langner J, Bühler P, Just U et al. Optimized listmode acquisition and data processing procedures for ACS2 based PET systems. Z Med Phys 2006; 16: 75-82.
18. Matheoud R, Secco C, Della Monica P et al. The effect of activity outside the field of view on image quality for a 3D LSO-based whole body PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol 2009; 54: 5861-5872.
19. Mejia AA, Nakamura T, Masatoshi I et al. Estimation of absorbed doses in humans due to intravenous administration of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in PET studies. J Nucl Med 1991; 32: 699-706.
20. Moore RR, Hirata-Dulas C, Kasiske BL. Use of urine specific gravity to improve screening for albuminuria. Kidney Int 1997; 52: 240-243.
21. Moran JK, Lee HB, Blaufox MD. Optimization of urinary FDG excretion during PET imaging. J Nucl Med 1999; 40: 1352-1357.
22. Mustafovic S, Thielemans K. Object dependency of resolution in reconstruction algorithms with interiteration filtering applied to PET data. IEEE Trans Med Imag 2004; 23: 433-446.
23. 18F-FDG in the bladder on PET/CT: frequency and cause. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: W96-W99.
24. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (www.R-project.org), Vienna, Austria 2013.
25. 18FDG. J Nucl Med 1998; 39: 1302-1305.
26. 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med 2006; 47: 1059-1066.
27. Spinks TJ, Miller MP, Bailey DL et al. The effect of activity outside the direct field of view in a 3D-only whole-body positron tomograph. Phys Med Biol 1998; 43: 895-904.
28. Stayman JW, Fessler J. Regularization for uniform spatial resolution properties in penalized-likelihood image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imag 2000; 19: 601-615.
29. Takahashi Y, Oriuchi N, Otake H et al. Variability of lesion detectability and standardized uptake value according to the acquisition procedure and reconstruction among five PET scanners. Ann Nucl Med 2008; 22: 543-548.
30. Thomas SR, Stabin MG, Chen CT, Samaratunga RC. MIRD Pamphlet No. 14 revised: A dynamic urinary bladder model for radiation dose calculations. J Nucl Med 1999; 40: 102S-123S.
31. Van Balen S, Hoving B, Boellaard R, Lammertsma A. Quality control and calibration of the ECAT HR plus PET scanner. Eur J Nucl Med 1999; 26: 1022.
32. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge M. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009; 50 (suppl 5): 122S-150S.
33. Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 983-995.
34. Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W et al. Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007; 34: 392-404.
35. 18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. Eur J Cancer 1999; 35: 1773-1782.
36. 99mTc SPECT/CT using orderedsubset expectation maximization with 3-dimensional resolution recovery, attenuation, and scatter correction. J Nucl Med 2010; 51: 921-928.