CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 160Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsRadiation Dose and ImagingCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

Feasibility of state of the art PET/CT systems performance harmonisation

Open access
Kaalep, Andres, Sera, Terez, Rijnsdorp, Sjoerd, Yaqub, Maqsood, Talsma, Anne, Lodge, Martin A., Boellaard, Ronald·2018·European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
DOI 10.1007/s00259-018-3977-4PMC PMC5993859
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to explore the feasibility of harmonising performance for PET/CT systems equipped with time-of-flight (ToF) and resolution modelling/point spread function (PSF) technologies. A second aim was producing a working prototype of new harmonising criteria with higher contrast recoveries than current EARL standards using various SUV metrics. METHODS: Four PET/CT systems with both ToF and PSF capabilities from three major vendors were used to acquire and reconstruct images of the NEMA NU2-2007 body phantom filled conforming EANM EARL guidelines. A total of 15 reconstruction parameter sets of varying pixel size, post filtering and reconstruction type, with three different acquisition durations were used to compare the quantitative performance of the systems. A target range for recovery curves was established such that it would accommodate the highest matching recoveries from all investigated systems. These updated criteria were validated on 18 additional scanners from 16 sites in order to demonstrate the scanners' ability to meet the new target range. RESULTS: Each of the four systems was found to be capable of producing harmonising reconstructions with similar recovery curves. The five reconstruction parameter sets producing harmonising results significantly increased SUVmean (25%) and SUVmax (26%) contrast recoveries compared with current EARL specifications. Additional prospective validation performed on 18 scanners from 16 EARL accredited sites demonstrated the feasibility of updated harmonising specifications. SUVpeak was found to significantly reduce the variability in quantitative results while producing lower recoveries in smaller (≤17 mm diameter) sphere sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonising PET/CT systems with ToF and PSF technologies from different vendors was found to be feasible. The harmonisation of such systems would require an update to the current multicentre accreditation program EARL in order to accommodate higher recoveries. SUVpeak should be further investigated as a noise resistant alternative quantitative metric to SUVmax.

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/s00259-018-3977-4

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Compared with non-PSF reconstructed images, PSF can increase lesion SUVmax, SUVmean and SUVpeak by up to 30% on average.

    “Compared with non-PSF reconstructed images, this can increase lesion SUVmax, SUVmean and SUVpeak by up to 30% on average [100,101,102].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [101]

    The Abstract Results report 25% higher SUVmean and 26% higher SUVmax contrast recoveries for proposed reconstructions, compared with current EARL specifications. The Discussion also says PSF can introduce positive SUV bias, particularly for SUVmax. The paper does not establish an average increase of up to 30% for all three lesion metrics—including SUVpeak—relative to non-PSF images; its reported recoveries are from phantom spheres. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • PL reconstruction can lead to overestimation of true activity in larger lesions if SUVmax is used, but the increase in CR may be especially prominent in microspheres with diameters <10 mm, where conventional algorithms usually underestimate true activity substantially.

    “Although this effect can lead to overestimation of the true activity in larger lesions if the SUVmax is used [101], the increase in CR may be especially prominent in microspheres with diameters <10 mm, in which conventional algorithms usually underestimate the true activity substantially [109].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [101]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • 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 [101]

    The Results (page not provided) show substantial variation in SUV recovery across PET/CT systems and reconstruction modes, and the Discussion says harmonisation is necessary for reliable use of SUVmax. The paper does not establish that test-retest variability of lesion SUVs has undermined attempts to set widely adoptable SUV thresholds; its reported variation is primarily across systems and reconstruction modes. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Using a commercially available PL reconstruction (GE Q.Clear), phantom studies have shown that PL reconstruction can increase CR of standardized sphere inserts compared to conventional TOF and PSF reconstruction.

    “Using a commercially available PL reconstruction (General Electric [GE] Q.Clear), several phantom studies have shown that PL reconstruction can increase the CR of standardized sphere inserts compared to conventional TOF and PSF reconstruction [41,46,101,107,108].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [101]

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: 49

  1. [1]Avril NE Weber WA Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET Radiol Clin N Am 2005 43 189 204 10.1016/j.rcl.2004.09.006 15693656 · DOI
  2. [2]Bastiaannet E Groen B Jager PL Cobben DCP van der Graaf WTA Vaalburg W The value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading and response to therapy of soft tissue and bone sarcomas; a systematic review and meta-analysis Cancer Treat Rev 2004 30 83 101 10.1016/j.ctrv.2003.07.004 14766127 · DOI
  3. [4]Fletcher JW Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel B a, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology J Nucl Med 2008 49 480 508 10.2967/jnumed.107.047787 18287273 · DOI
  4. [5]de Geus-Oei L-F van der Heijden HFM Corstens FHM Oyen WJG Predictive and prognostic value of FDG-PET in nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Cancer [internet]. Wiley subscription services, Inc A Wiley Company 2007 110 1654 1664 17879371
  5. [6]Hoekstra CJ Stroobants SG Smit EF Vansteenkiste J van Tinteren H Postmus PE Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer J Clin Oncol 2005 23 8362 8370 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.1189 16293866 · DOI
  6. [7]Juweid ME Stroobants S Hoekstra OS Mottaghy FM Dietlein M Guermazi A Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the imaging subcommittee of international harmonization project in lymphoma J Clin Oncol 2007 25 571 578 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.2305 17242397 · DOI
  7. [8]Vansteenkiste JF Stroobants SG The role of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in respiratory oncology Eur Respir J 2001 17 802 820 10.1183/09031936.01.17408020 11401078 · DOI
  8. [9]Weber WA Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome J. Nucl. Med. [Internet]. 2005 46 983 995 15937310
  9. [10]Borst GR Belderbos JS Boellaard R EFI C De Jaeger K Lammertsma AA Standardised FDG uptake: a prognostic factor for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer Eur J Cancer 2005 41 1533 1541 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.03.026 15953716 · DOI
  10. [11]Shankar LK Hoffman JM Bacharach S Graham MM Karp J Lammertsma AA Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute trials J Nucl Med 2006 47 1059 1066 16741317
  11. [12]Gupta T Master Z Kannan S Agarwal JP Ghsoh-Laskar S Rangarajan V Diagnostic performance of post-treatment FDG PET or FDG PET/CT imaging in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011 38 2083 10.1007/s00259-011-1893-y 21853309 · DOI
  12. [13]Ung YC Maziak DE Vanderveen JA Smith CA Gulenchyn K Lacchetti C 18Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer: a systematic review J Natl Cancer Inst 2007 99 1753 1767 10.1093/jnci/djm232 18042932 · DOI
  13. [14]Lv Y-L Yuan D-M Wang K Miao X-H Qian Q Wei S-Z Diagnostic performance of integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography for mediastinal lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer: a bivariate systematic review and meta-analysis J Thorac Oncol International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 2011 6 1350 1358 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31821d4384 21642874 · DOI
  14. [15]Eschmann SM Friedel G Paulsen F Reimold M Hehr T Budach W 18F-FDG PET for assessment of therapy response and preoperative re-evaluation after neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007 34 463 471 10.1007/s00259-006-0273-5 17103167 · DOI
  15. [16]Hicks RJ Kalff V Macmanus MP Ware RE Mckenzie AF Matthews JP The utility of F-FDG PET for suspected recurrent non – small cell lung cancer after potentially curative therapy: impact on management and prognostic stratification J Nucl Med. 2001 42 10 21 11696628
  16. [17]Dijkman BG Schuurbiers OCJ Vriens D Looijen-Salamon M Bussink J Timmer-Bonte JNH The role of (18)F-FDG PET in the differentiation between lung metastases and synchronous second primary lung tumours Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 2010 37 2037 2047 10.1007/s00259-010-1505-2 PMC2948164 20533031 · DOI
  17. [18]Hellwig D Graeter TP Ukena D Groeschel A Sybrecht GW Schaefers HJ 18F-FDG PET for mediastinal staging of lung cancer: which SUV threshold makes sense? J Nucl Med 2007 48 1761 1766 10.2967/jnumed.107.044362 17942814 · DOI
  18. [19]Agarwal M Brahmanday G Bajaj SK Ravikrishnan KP Wong C-YO Revisiting the prognostic value of preoperative (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in early-stage (I & II) non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010 37 691 698 10.1007/s00259-009-1291-x 19915840 PMC2844956 · DOI
  19. [20]Liao S Penney BC Wroblewski K Zhang H Simon CA Kampalath R Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden on 18F-FDG PET in nonsurgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012 39 27 38 10.1007/s00259-011-1934-6 21946983 · DOI
  20. [21]Cheson BD Pfistner B Juweid ME Gascoyne RD Specht L Horning SJ Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma J Clin Oncol 2007 25 579 586 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.2403 17242396 · DOI
  21. [22]Hicks RJ Role of 18F-FDG PET in assessment of response in non-small cell lung cancer J Nucl Med 2009 50 31S 342 10.2967/jnumed.108.057216 19380411 · DOI
  22. [23]Czernin J Weber WA Herschman HR Molecular imaging in the development of cancer therapeutics Annu Rev Med United States 2006 57 99 118 10.1146/annurev.med.57.080904.190431 16409139 · DOI
  23. [24]Frank R Hargreaves R Clinical biomarkers in drug discovery and development Nat Rev Drug Discov England 2003 2 566 580 10.1038/nrd1130 12838269 · DOI
  24. [25]Weber WA Assessing tumor response to therapy J Nucl Med 2009 50 1S 10 10.2967/jnumed.108.057174 19380403 · DOI
  25. [26]Weber WA Petersen V Schmidt B Tyndale-Hines L Link T Peschel C Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use J Clin Oncol United States 2003 21 2651 2657 10.1200/JCO.2003.12.004 12860940 · DOI
  26. [27]Boellaard R Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis J Nucl Med 2009 50 Suppl 1 11S 20S 10.2967/jnumed.108.057182 19380405 · DOI
  27. [28]Boellaard R Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments J Nucl Med [Internet] 2011 52 Suppl 2 93S 100S 10.2967/jnumed.110.085662 22144561 · DOI
  28. [29]Doot RK Pierce LA Byrd D Elston B Allberg KC Kinahan PE Biases in multicenter longitudinal PET standardized uptake value measurements Transl Oncol [Internet] 2014 7 48 54 10.1593/tlo.13850 PMC3998681 24772207 · DOI
  29. [30]Feuardent J Soret M De Dreuille O Foehrenbach H Buvat I Reliability of uptake estimates in FDG PET as a function of acquisition and processing protocols using the CPET IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2005 52 1447 1452 10.1109/TNS.2005.858222 · DOI
  30. [31]Kurland BF Gerstner ER Mountz JM Schwartz LH Ryan CW Graham MM Promise and pitfalls of quantitative imaging in oncology clinical trials Magn Reson Imaging 2012 30 1301 1312 10.1016/j.mri.2012.06.009 22898682 PMC3466405 · DOI
  31. [32]Lammertsma AA, Hoekstra CJ, Giaccone G, Hoekstra OS. How should we analyse FDG PET studies for monitoring tumour response? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33 16763817
  32. [33]Vriens D Visser EP De Geus-Oei LF WJG O Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010 37 1408 1425 10.1007/s00259-009-1306-7 19936745 PMC2886126 · DOI
  33. [34]Westerterp M Pruim J Oyen W Hoekstra O Paans A Visser E Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007 34 392 404 10.1007/s00259-006-0224-1 17033848 · DOI
  34. [36]Delbeke D Coleman RE Guiberteau MJ Brown ML Royal HD Siegel B a, et al. procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0 J Nucl Med 2006 47 885 895 16644760
  35. [37]Graham MM Wahl RL Hoffman JM Yap JT Sunderland JJ Boellaard R Summary of the UPICT protocol for 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in oncology clinical trials J Nucl Med 2015 56 955 961 10.2967/jnumed.115.158402 25883122 PMC4587663 · DOI
  36. [38]Scheuermann JS Saffer JR Karp JS Levering AM Siegel A Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: the American College of Radiology Imaging Network experience J Nucl Med 2010 50 1187 1193 10.2967/jnumed.108.057455 PMC2744888 19525463 · DOI
  37. [41]Weber WA PET for response assessment in oncology: radiotherapy and chemotherapy Br J Radiol 2005 78 42 49 10.1259/bjr/59640473 · DOI
  38. [42]Young H Baum R Cremerius U Herholz K Hoekstra O Lammertsma AA Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]- fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations Eur J Cancer 1999 35 1773 1782 10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00229-4 10673991 · DOI
  39. [43]Huang H. Anatomy of SUV. Nucl Med Biol [Internet]. 2000;27. 10.1016/S0969-8051(00)00155-4. · DOI
  40. [44]Thie JA Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage J Nucl Med 2004 45 1431 1434 15347707
  41. [45]Krak NC Boellaard R Hoekstra OS Twisk JWR Hoekstra CJ Lammertsma AA Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005 32 294 301 10.1007/s00259-004-1566-1 15791438 · DOI
  42. [48]Karlberg AM, Sæther O, Eikenes L, Goa PE. Quantitative comparison of PET performance-Siemens Biograph mCT and mMR. EJNMMI Phys. [Internet]. 2016;3:5. Available from: http://ejnmmiphys.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40658-016-0142-7 PMC4766138 26911722 · DOI
  43. [49]Kolthammer JA Su K-H Grover A Narayanan M Jordan DW Muzic RF Performance evaluation of the ingenuity TF PET/CT scanner with a focus on high count-rate conditions Phys Med Biol [Internet] 2014 59 3843 3859 10.1088/0031-9155/59/14/3843 PMC4457340 24955921 · DOI
  44. [52]Lodge MA Chaudhry MA Wahl RL Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value J Nucl Med 2012 53 1041 1047 10.2967/jnumed.111.101733 22627001 PMC3417317 · DOI
  45. [53]Sunderland JJ Christian PE Quantitative PET/CT scanner performance characterization based upon the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging clinical trials network oncology clinical simulator phantom J Nucl Med 2015 56 145 152 10.2967/jnumed.114.148056 25525180 · DOI
  46. [54]Lasnon C Desmonts C Quak E Gervais R Do P Dubos-Arvis C Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013 40 985 996 10.1007/s00259-013-2391-1 23564036 PMC3679414 · DOI
  47. [56]Makris NE Huisman MC Kinahan PE Lammertsma AA Boellaard R Evaluation of strategies towards harmonization of FDG PET/CT studies in multicentre trials: comparison of scanner validation phantoms and data analysis procedures Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013 40 1507 1515 10.1007/s00259-013-2465-0 23754762 PMC6704482 · DOI
  48. [57]Frings V van Velden FHP Velasquez LM Hayes W van de Ven PM Hoekstra OS Repeatability of metabolically active tumor volume measurements with FDG PET/CT in advanced gastrointestinal malignancies: a multicenter study Radiology [Internet] Radiological Society of North America 2014 273 539 548 24865311
  49. [58]van Velden FHP Kramer GM Frings V Nissen IA Mulder ER de Langen AJ Repeatability of Radiomic features in non-small-cell lung cancer [18F]FDG-PET/CT studies: impact of reconstruction and delineation. Mol. Imaging biol. [internet] Mol Imaging Biol 2016 18 788 795 10.1007/s11307-016-0940-2 26920355 PMC5010602 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kaalep, A., Sera, T., Rijnsdorp, S., Yaqub, M., Talsma, A., Lodge, M. A., & Boellaard, R.
Affiliations
  • North Estonia Medical Centre (EE)
  • Catharina Ziekenhuis (NL)
  • Gemeente Amsterdam (NL)
  • Martini Ziekenhuis (NL)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Kaalep, Andres
  • Boellaard, Ronald
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-03-02
Volume
45
Issue
8
Pages
1344-1361
ISSN
  • 1619-7070 (ISSN-L)
  • 1619-7089
DOI
10.1007/s00259-018-3977-4
PMC
PMC5993859
OpenAlex
W2790159993
Cited by
160
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 5
FWCI
12.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
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, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SZTE Publicatio Repozitórium (University of Szeged) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • 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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Keywords
PET/CT, time-of-flight PET, point spread function reconstruction, standardized uptake value, SUVpeak, SUVmax, SUVmean
MeSH terms
Accreditation, Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Humans, Prospective Studies, Phantoms, Imaging, 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