Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 396

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials

Open access
Boellaard, Ronald, Oyen, Wim J. G., Hoekstra, Corneline J., Hoekstra, Otto S., Visser, Eric P., Willemsen, Antoon T., Arends, Bertjan, Verzijlbergen, Fred J., Zijlstra, Josee, Paans, Anne M., Comans, Emile F. I., Pruim, Jan·2008·European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
DOI 10.1007/s00259-008-0874-2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Several studies have shown the usefulness of positron emission tomography (PET) quantification using standardised uptake values (SUV) for diagnosis and staging, prognosis and response monitoring. Many factors affect SUV, such as patient preparation procedures, scan acquisition, image reconstruction and data analysis settings, and the variability in methodology across centres prohibits exchange of SUV data. Therefore, standardisation of 2-[(18)F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET whole body procedures is required in multi-centre trials. METHODS: A protocol for standardisation of quantitative FDG whole body PET studies in the Netherlands (NL) was defined. This protocol is based on standardisation of: (1) patient preparation; (2) matching of scan statistics by prescribing dosage as function of patient weight, scan time per bed position, percentage of bed overlap and image acquisition mode (2D or 3D); (3) matching of image resolution by prescribing reconstruction settings for each type of scanner; (4) matching of data analysis procedure by defining volume of interest methods and SUV calculations and; (5) finally, a multi-centre QC procedure is defined using a 20-cm diameter phantom for verification of scanner calibration and the NEMA NU 2 2001 Image Quality phantom for verification of activity concentration recoveries (i.e., verification of image resolution and reconstruction convergence). DISCUSSION: This paper describes a protocol for standardization of quantitative FDG whole body multi-centre PET studies. CONCLUSION: The protocol was successfully implemented in the Netherlands and has been approved by the Netherlands Society of Nuclear Medicine.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00259-008-0874-2

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Boellaard, R., Oyen, W. J. G., Hoekstra, C. J., Hoekstra, O. S., Visser, E. P., Willemsen, A. T., Arends, B., Verzijlbergen, F. J., Zijlstra, J., Paans, A. M., Comans, E. F. I., & Pruim, J.
Venue
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2008-08-15
Volume
35
Issue
12
Pages
2320-2333
ISSN
  • 1619-7070 (ISSN-L)
  • 1619-7089
DOI
10.1007/s00259-008-0874-2
OpenAlex
W1995308403
Cited by
396
References
0
FWCI
19.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.