Impact of point spread function modelling and time of flight on FDG uptake measurements in lung lesions using alternative filtering strategies

被引:58
作者
Armstrong I.S. [1 ,2 ]
Kelly M.D. [3 ]
Williams H.A. [1 ]
Matthews J.C. [2 ]
机构
[1] Nuclear Medicine, Central Manchester University Hospitals, Oxford Road, Manchester
[2] Institute of Population Health, MAHSC, University of Manchester, Manchester
[3] Molecular Imaging, Healthcare Sector, Siemens PLC, Oxford
关键词
PET quantification; PSF modelling; SUV; Time-of-flight; Total lesion glycolysis;
D O I
10.1186/s40658-014-0099-3
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The use of maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) is commonplace in oncology positron emission tomography (PET). Point spread function (PSF) modelling and time-of-flight (TOF) reconstructions have a significant impact on SUVmax, presenting a challenge for centres with defined protocols for lesion classification based on SUVmax thresholds. This has perhaps led to the slow adoption of these reconstructions. This work evaluated the impact of PSF and/or TOF reconstructions on SUVmax, SUVpeak and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) under two different schemes of post-filtering.; Methods: Post-filters to match voxel variance or SUVmax were determined using a NEMA NU-2 phantom. Images from 68 consecutive lung cancer patients were reconstructed with the standard iterative algorithm along with TOF; PSF modelling - Siemens HD·PET (HD); and combined PSF modelling and TOF - Siemens ultraHD·PET (UHD) with the two post-filter sets. SUVmax, SUVpeak, TLG and signal-to-noise ratio of tumour relative to liver (SNR(T-L)) were measured in 74 lesions for each reconstruction. Relative differences in uptake measures were calculated, and the clinical impact of any changes was assessed using published guidelines and local practice.; Results: When matching voxel variance, SUVmax increased substantially (mean increase +32% and +49% for HD and UHD, respectively), potentially impacting outcome in the majority of patients. Increases in SUVpeak were less notable (mean increase +17% and +23% for HD and UHD, respectively). Increases with TOF alone were far less for both measures. Mean changes to TLG were <10% for all algorithms for either set of post-filters. SNR(T-L) were greater than ordered subset expectation maximisation (OSEM) in all reconstructions using both post-filtering sets.; Conclusions: Matching image voxel variance with PSF and/or TOF reconstructions, particularly with PSF modelling and in small lesions, resulted in considerable increases in SUVmax, inhibiting the use of defined protocols for lesion classification based on SUVmax. However, reduced partial volume effects may increase lesion detectability. Matching SUVmax in phantoms translated well to patient studies for PSF reconstruction but less well with TOF, where a small positive bias was observed in patient images. Matching SUVmax significantly reduced voxel variance and potential variability of uptake measures. Finally, TLG may be less sensitive to reconstruction methods compared with either SUVmax or SUVpeak. © 2014, Armstrong et al.; licensee Springer.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 18
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
[1]  
Cerfolio R.J., Bryant A.S., Ohja B., Bartolucci A.A., The maximum standardized uptake values on positron emission tomography of a non-small cell lung cancer predict stage, recurrence, and survival, J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 130, pp. 151-159, (2005)
[2]  
Cerfolio R.J., Bryant A.S., Ojha B., Eloubeidi M., Improving the inaccuracies of clinical staging of patients with NSCLC: a prospective trial, Ann Thorac Surg, 80, pp. 1207-1214, (2005)
[3]  
Subedi N., Scarsbrook A., Darby M., Korde K., Mc Shane P., Muers M.F., The clinical impact of integrated FDG PET–CT on management decisions in patients with lung cancer, Lung Cancer, 64, 3, pp. 301-307, (2009)
[4]  
Dijkman B., Schuurbiers O., Vriens D., Looijen-Salamon M., Bussink J., Timmer-Bonte J., Snoeren M., Oyen W., van der Heijden H., de Geus-Oei L.-F., The role of 18F-FDG PET in the differentiation between lung metastases and synchronous second primary lung tumours, Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 37, 11, pp. 2037-2047, (2010)
[5]  
Gregory D.L., Hicks R.J., Hogg A., Binns D.S., Shum P.L., Milner A., Link E., Ball D.L., Mac Manus M.P., Effect of PET/CT on management of patients with non-small cell lung cancer: results of a prospective study with 5-year survival data, J Nucl Med, 53, 7, pp. 1007-1015, (2012)
[6]  
Erdi Y.E., Macapinlac H., Rosenzweig K.E., Humm J.L., Larson S.M., Erdi A.K., Yorke E.D., Use of PET to monitor the response of lung cancer to radiation treatment, Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 27, 7, pp. 861-866, (2000)
[7]  
Beyer T., Czernin J., Freudenberg L.S., Variations in clinical PET/CT operations: results of an international survey of active PET/CT users, J Nucl Med, 52, 2, pp. 303-310, (2011)
[8]  
Bryant A.S., Cerfolio R.J., The maximum standardized uptake values on integrated FDG-PET/CT is useful in differentiating benign from malignant pulmonary nodules, Ann Thorac Surg, 82, 3, pp. 1016-1020, (2006)
[9]  
Nambu A., Kato S., Sato Y., Okuwaki H., Nishikawa K., Saito A., Matsumoto K., Ichikawa T., Araki T., Relationship between maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of lung cancer and lymph node metastasis on FDG-PET, Ann Nucl Med, 23, 3, pp. 269-275, (2009)
[10]  
Young H., Baum R., Cremerius U., Herholz K., Hoekstra O., Lammertsma A.A., Pruim J., Price P., Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group, Eur J Cancer, 35, pp. 1773-1782, (1999)