Cited by 344Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies

Open access
Aide, Nicolas, Lasnon, Charline, Veit-Haibach, Patrick, Sera, Terez, Sattler, Bernhard, Boellaard, Ronald·2017·European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Abstract

Quantitative positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can be used as diagnostic or prognostic tools (i.e. single measurement) or for therapy monitoring (i.e. longitudinal studies) in multicentre studies. Use of quantitative parameters, such as standardized uptake values (SUVs), metabolic active tumor volumes (MATVs) or total lesion glycolysis (TLG), in a multicenter setting requires that these parameters be comparable among patients and sites, regardless of the PET/CT system used. This review describes the motivations and the methodologies for quantitative PET/CT performance harmonization with emphasis on the EANM Research Ltd. (EARL) Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT accreditation program, one of the international harmonization programs aiming at using FDG PET as a quantitative imaging biomarker. In addition, future accreditation initiatives will be discussed. The validation of the EARL accreditation program to harmonize SUVs and MATVs is described in a wide range of tumor types, with focus on therapy assessment using either the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria or PET Evaluation Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), as well as liver-based scales such as the Deauville score. Finally, also presented in this paper are the results from a survey across 51 EARL-accredited centers reporting how the program was implemented and its impact on daily routine and in clinical trials, harmonization of new metrics such as MATV and heterogeneity features.

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/s00259-017-3740-2

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The test-retest variability of lesion SUVs has undermined attempts to establish widely adoptable SUV thresholds unless rigorous harmonization measures are followed.

    “This has undermined any attempts to establish widely adoptable SUV thresholds unless rigorous harmonization measures are followed [101,103,181].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [181]

    The section on EORTC response criteria and PERCIST says reconstruction variability can push lesion SUV changes across response thresholds, and the Conclusions say harmonization is needed for comparable measurements across PET systems. But the Background describes improved test-retest repeatability; it does not identify test-retest variability as the reason widely adoptable thresholds have been undermined. The cited problem is principally variation between reconstruction methods and systems. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [44]Quak E Le Roux PY Hofman MS Robin P Bourhis D Callahan J Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients Eur J Nucl med Mol Imaging 2015 42 2072 2082 10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0 26219870 PMC4623085 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [49]Barrington SF, Kluge R. FDG-PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017. doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3690-8. PMC5541086 28411336 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aide, N., Lasnon, C., Veit-Haibach, P., Sera, T., Sattler, B., & Boellaard, R.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • University Hospital Leipzig (DE)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Aide, Nicolas
Venue
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published
2017-06-16
Volume
44
Issue
S1
Pages
17-31
ISSN
  • 1619-7070 (ISSN-L)
  • 1619-7089
OpenAlex
W2625583840
Cited by
344
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 12 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SZTE Publicatio Repozitórium (University of Szeged) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
PET quantification, method harmonization, FDG PET/CT, standardized uptake value, total lesion glycolysis, therapy response assessment, EORTC criteria, PERCIST, Deauville score, imaging biomarkers
MeSH terms
Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neoplasms, Reference Standards, Societies, Medical, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Positron-Emission Tomography

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