CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 174Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsRadiation Dose and ImagingAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.1007/s00259-017-3853-7PMC PMC5787222
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

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/s00259-017-3853-7

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Number of sites and PET/CT systems participating in the EARL accreditation program. For 2016 data has been collected from January to July
Fig. 1 Number of sites and PET/CT systems participating in the EARL accreditation program. For 2016 data has been collected from January to JulyCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Comparison of CalQC SUV bias distribution for all, initial and subsequent submissions along with vendor based distribution of approved results. The dotted horizontal lines represent EARL specification limits. Central line of the box is the median, edges of the box are the 25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers extend to either of the most extreme data points, which are not considered outliers or 1.5 times interquartile range. The outliers are marked using plus signs
Fig. 2 Comparison of CalQC SUV bias distribution for all, initial and subsequent submissions along with vendor based distribution of approved results. The dotted horizontal lines represent EARL specification limits. Central line of the box is the median, edges of the box are the 25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers extend to either of the most extreme data points, which are not considered outliers or 1.5 times interquartile range. The outliers are marked using plus signsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Longitudinal plots of EARL approved CalQC results from the 16 systems. SUV bias deviation from the expected value. The dotted horizontal lines represent EARL specification limits. Central line of the box is the median, edges of the box are the 25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers extend to either of the most extreme data points, which are not considered outliers or 1.5 times interquartile range. The outliers are marked using plus signs
Fig. 3 Longitudinal plots of EARL approved CalQC results from the 16 systems. SUV bias deviation from the expected value. The dotted horizontal lines represent EARL specification limits. Central line of the box is the median, edges of the box are the 25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers extend to either of the most extreme data points, which are not considered outliers or 1.5 times interquartile range. The outliers are marked using plus signsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 IQQC SUVmean (a to f) and SUVmax (g to l) recovery results, regular ongoing and all EARL approved submissions (pooled and per vendor). Dots represent EARL specification limits. Central line of the box is the median, edges of the box are the 25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers extend to either of the most extreme data points which are not considered outliers or 1.5 times interquartile range. The outliers are marked using plus signs
Fig. 4 IQQC SUVmean (a to f) and SUVmax (g to l) recovery results, regular ongoing and all EARL approved submissions (pooled and per vendor). Dots represent EARL specification limits. Central line of the box is the median, edges of the box are the 25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers extend to either of the most extreme data points which are not considered outliers or 1.5 times interquartile range. The outliers are marked using plus signsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Longitudinal analysis of IQQC results from 16 scanners. Recovery coefficients biases from the mean of the respective scanner. "Initial“data series represents the first IQQC submission for each system. Central line of the box is the median, edges of the box are the 25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers extend to either of the most extreme data points which are not considered outliers or 1.5 times interquartile range. The outliers are marked using plus signs
Fig. 5 Longitudinal analysis of IQQC results from 16 scanners. Recovery coefficients biases from the mean of the respective scanner. "Initial“data series represents the first IQQC submission for each system. Central line of the box is the median, edges of the box are the 25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers extend to either of the most extreme data points which are not considered outliers or 1.5 times interquartile range. The outliers are marked using plus signsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Longitudinal analysis of the 16 systems’ CalQC results. SUV bias values for each system are presented as separate lines. Dotted lines represent outliers and dashed lines subsequent corrective actions. Red dots represent data points outside EARL specifications
Fig. 6 Longitudinal analysis of the 16 systems’ CalQC results. SUV bias values for each system are presented as separate lines. Dotted lines represent outliers and dashed lines subsequent corrective actions. Red dots represent data points outside EARL specificationsCC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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

Cites

Show all 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kinahan P, Wahl R, Shao L, Frank R, Perlman E. The QIBA profile for quantitative FDG-PET/CT oncology imaging. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1520.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

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
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-12-01
Volume
45
Issue
3
Pages
412-422
ISSN
  • 1619-7070 (ISSN-L)
  • 1619-7089
DOI
10.1007/s00259-017-3853-7
PMC
PMC5787222
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
Licence
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