Quantitative PET/CT scanner performance characterization based upon the society of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging clinical trials network oncology clinical simulator phantom

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 56, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 145-152

  Sunderland, John J ^a   Christian, Paul E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

Multicenter clinical trials; PET quantitation; Phantom; Scanner calibration

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AXILLARY LYMPH NODE; CALIBRATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; IMAGING PHANTOM; MOLECULAR IMAGING; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; PET SCANNER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUALITY CONTROL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SIMULATOR; DEVICES; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; NEOPLASM; RADIOGRAPHY; SCINTISCANNING;

CALIBRATION; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MOLECULAR IMAGING; NEOPLASMS; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; SOCIETIES, SCIENTIFIC; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84920498374     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.114.148056     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. 18FFDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med. 2011; 52(suppl 2): 93S-100S.
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. Doot RK, Pierce LA 2nd, Byrd D, Elston B, Allberg KC, Kinahan PE. Biases in multicenter longitudinal PET standardized uptake value measurements. Transl Oncol. 2014; 7: 48-54.
4. Feuardent J, Soret M, de Dreuille O, Foehrenbach H, Buvat L. Reliability of uptake estimates in FDG PET as a function of acquisition and processing protocols using the CPET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2005; 52: 1447-1452.
5. Kurland BF, Gerstner ER, Mountz JM, et al. Promise and pitfalls of quantitative imaging in oncology clinical trials. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012; 30: 1301-1312.
6. 18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose and positronemission tomography. J Clin Pharmacol. 2001; suppl: 104S-106S.
7. Lammertsma AA, Hoekstra CJ, Giaccone G, Hoekstra OS. How should we analyse FDG PET studies for monitoring tumour response? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006; 33(suppl 1): 16-21.
8. Quak E, Hovhannisyan N, Lasnon C, et al. The importance of harmonizing interim positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: focus on the Deauville criteria. Haematologica. 2014; 99: e84-e85.
9. Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of F-18- FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in national cancer institute trials. J Nucl Med. 2006; 47: 1059-1066.
10. Vriens D, Visser EP, de Geus-Oei LF, Oyen WJ. Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010; 37: 1408-1425.
11. 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.
12. Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Quak E, et al. Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in nonsmall cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013; 40: 985-996.
13. Scheuermann JS, Saffer JR, Karp JS, Levering AM, Siegel BA. Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: the American College of Radiology Imaging Network experience. J Nucl Med. 2009; 50: 1187-1193.
14. QIBA-UPICT protocol, version for public comment. FDG-PET/CT as an imaging biomarker measuring response to cancer therapy, v1.0. Radiological Society of North America website. http://qibawiki.rsna.org/images/5/54/QIBA-UPICT-Oncologic-FDGPETCT-Protocol-v1.0-Version-for-Public-Comment-6-7-13.pdf. 2013. Accessed December 2, 2014.
15. Boellaard R, Willemesen AT, Arends B, Visser E. EARL procedure for assessing PET/CT system specific patient FDG activity preparations for quantitative FDG PET/ CT studies. European Association of Nuclear Medicine website. http://earl.eanm.org/ html/img/pool/EARL-procedure-for-optimizing-FDG-activity-for-quantitative-FDGPET-studies-version-1-1.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2014.
16. Christian PE. Use of a precision fillable clinical simulator phantom for PET/CT scanner validation in multi-center clinical trials: the SNM Clinical Trials Network (CTN) Program [abstract]. J Nucl Med. 2012; 53(suppl 1): 437.
17. Christian PE. Longitudinal PET scanner stability: SNMMI Clinical Trials Network experience [abstract]. J Nucl Med. 2014; 55(suppl 1): 2156.
18. QIBA Profile. FDG-PET/CT as an imaging biomarker measuring response to cancer therapy, version 1.05, publically reviewed version. Radiological Society of North America website. http://www.rsna.org/uploadedfiles/rsna/content/science-and-education/qiba/qiba-fdg-pet-profile-v105-publicly-reviewed-version-final-11dec2013.pdf. December 11, 2013. Accessed December 2, 2014.