A prospective, matched comparison study of SUV measurements from time-of-flight versus non-time-of-flight PET/CT scanners

Clinical Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 41, Issue 7, 2016, Pages e323-e326

  Thompson, Holly M ^a   Minamimoto, Ryogo ^a   Jamali, Mehran ^a   Barkhodari, Amir ^a   Von Eyben, Rie ^a   Iagaru, Andrei ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Non TOF PET CT; SUV; TOF PET CT

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

AORTA ARCH; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CEREBELLUM; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GLUTEUS MAXIMUS MUSCLE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIVER; LUNG; MALE; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; PET-CT SCANNER; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; SPLEEN; STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUE; TIME OF FLIGHT MASS SPECTROMETRY; TIME OF FLIGHT PET-CT SCANNER; ADULT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEVICES; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY-COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84959075933     PISSN: 03639762     EISSN: 15360229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001170     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Kelloff GJ, Hoffman JM, Johnson B, et al. Progress and promise of FDGPET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:2785-2808.
2. Sunderland JJ, Christian PE. Quantitative PET/CT scanner performance characterization based upon the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Clinical Trials Network Oncology Clinical Simulator Phantom. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:145-152.
3. Graham MM, Wahl RL, Hoffman JM, et al. Summary of the UPICT protocol for 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in oncology clinical trials. J Nucl Med. 2015; 56:955-961.
4. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WG, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328-354.
5. Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:885-895.
6. Akamatsu G, Mitsumoto K, Ishikawa K, et al. Benefits of point-spread function and time of flight for PET/CT image quality in relation to the body mass index and injected dose. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:407-412.
7. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:11S-20S.
8. 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.
9. Walker E, Nowacki A. Understanding equivalence and noninferiority testing. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:192-196.
10. Martin Bland J, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327:307-310.
11. Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:496-507.
12. Nahmias C, Wahl LM. Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1804-1808.
13. Cheng G, Torigian D, Zhuang H, et al. When should we recommend use of dual time-point and delayed time-point imaging techniques in FDG PET? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:779-787.