Cited by 174Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsRadiation Dose and ImagingAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques

EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation - summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems

Open access
Kaalep, Andres, Sera, Terez, Oyen, Wim, Krause, Bernd J., Chiti, Arturo, Liu, Yan, Boellaard, Ronald·2018·European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Abstract

PURPOSE: From 2010 until July 2016, the EANM Research Ltd. (EARL) FDG-PET/CT accreditation program has collected over 2500 phantom datasets from approximately 200 systems and 150 imaging sites worldwide. The objective of this study is to report the findings and impact of the accreditation program on the participating PET/CT systems. METHODS: To obtain and maintain EARL accredited status, sites were required to complete and submit two phantom scans - calibration quality control (CalQC), using a uniform cylindrical phantom and image quality control (IQQC), using a NEMA NU2-2007 body phantom. Average volumetric SUV bias and SUV recovery coefficients (RC) were calculated and the data evaluated on the basis of quality control (QC) type, approval status, PET/CT system manufacturer and submission order. RESULTS: SUV bias in 5% (n = 96) of all CalQC submissions (n = 1816) exceeded 10%. After corrective actions following EARL feedback, sites achieved 100% compliance within EARL specifications. 30% (n = 1381) of SUVmean and 23% (n = 1095) of SUVmax sphere recoveries from IQQC submissions failed to meet EARL accreditation criteria while after accreditation, failure rate decreased to 12% (n = 360) and 9% (n = 254), respectively. Most systems demonstrated longitudinal SUV bias reproducibility within ±5%, while RC values remained stable and generally within ±10% for the four largest and ±20% for the two smallest spheres. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of manufacturer or model, all investigated systems are able to comply with the EARL specifications. Within the EARL accreditation program, gross PET/CT calibration errors are successfully identified and longitudinal variability in PET/CT performances reduced. The program demonstrates that a harmonising accreditation procedure is feasible and achievable.

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/s00259-017-3853-7

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • Errors in SUV quantification can easily be avoided by following existing EANM or EARL guidelines.

    “Although all these errors are potentially severe, it should be noted that they can easily be avoided by following existing guidelines published by the EANM [24] or the EANM Research Ltd. (EARL) initiative [67].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [67]

    The Introduction (page not provided) says the EARL programme set guidelines and specifications to address variability in quantitative FDG-PET imaging. The Results and Discussion (pages not provided) report that calibration errors were brought within specifications after EARL feedback and corrective action. This supports the value of EARL procedures, but not the broader claim that all the errors at issue can easily be avoided simply by following existing guidelines. (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

2 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kaalep, A., Sera, T., Oyen, W., Krause, B. J., Chiti, A., Liu, Y., & Boellaard, R.
Affiliations
  • North Estonia Medical Centre (EE)
  • Institute of Cancer Research (GB)
  • Universitätsmedizin Rostock (DE)
  • Humanitas University (IT)
  • European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NL)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Kaalep, Andres
Venue
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published
2017-12-01
Volume
45
Issue
3
Pages
412-422
ISSN
  • 1619-7070 (ISSN-L)
  • 1619-7089
OpenAlex
W2773306697
Cited by
174
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 15
FWCI
8.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SZTE Publicatio Repozitórium (University of Szeged) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Keywords
quality control, image quality control, standardized uptake value
MeSH terms
Accreditation, Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Calibration, Nuclear Medicine, Societies, Medical, Phantoms, Imaging, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18

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