CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 82Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques

Instrumentation factors affecting variance and bias of quantifying tracer uptake with PET/CT

Open access
Doot, R. K., Scheuermann, J. S., Christian, P. E., Karp, J. S., Kinahan, P. E.·2010·Medical Physics
DOI 10.1118/1.3499298PMC PMC2988835
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Purpose: The variances and biases inherent in quantifying PET tracer uptake from instrumentation factors are needed to ascertain the significance of any measured differences such as in quantifying response to therapy. The authors studied the repeatability and reproducibility of serial PET measures of activity as a function of object size, acquisition, reconstruction, and analysis method on one scanner and at three PET centers using a single protocol with long half‐life phantoms. Methods: The authors assessed standard deviations (SDs) and mean biases of consecutive measures of PET activity concentrations in a uniform phantom and a NEMA NU‐2 image quality (IQ) phantom filled with 9 months half‐life in an epoxy matrix. Activity measurements were normalized by dividing by a common decay corrected true value and reported as recovery coefficients (RCs). Each experimental set consisted of 20 consecutive PET scans of either a stationary phantom to evaluate repeatability or a repositioned phantom to assess reproducibility. One site conducted a comprehensive series of repeatability and reproducibility experiments, while two other sites repeated the reproducibility experiments using the same IQ phantom. An equation was derived to estimate the SD of a new PET measure from a known SD based on the ratios of available coincident counts between the two PET measures. Results: For stationary uniform phantom scans, the SDs of maximum RCs were three to five times less than predicted for uncorrelated pixels within circular regions of interest (ROIs) with diameters ranging from 1 to 15 cm. For stationary IQ phantom scans from 1 cm diameter ROIs, the average SDs of mean and maximum RCs ranged from 1.4% to 8.0%, depending on the methods of acquisition and reconstruction (coefficients of variation range 2.5% to 9.8%). Similar SDs were observed for both analytic and iterative reconstruction methods . SDs of RCs for 2D acquisitions were significantly higher than for 3D acquisitions for same acquisition and processing parameters. SDs of maximum RCs were larger than corresponding mean values for stationary IQ phantom scans , although the magnitude of difference is reduced due to noise correlations in the image. Increased smoothing decreased SDs and decreased maximum and mean RCs . Reproducibility of GE DSTE, Philips Gemini TF, and Siemens Biograph Hi‐REZ PET/CT scans of the same IQ phantom, with similar acquisition, reconstruction, and repositioning among 20 scans, were, in general, similar (mean and maximum RC SD range 2.5% to 4.8%). Conclusions: Short‐term scanner variability is low compared to other sources of error. There are tradeoffs in noise and bias depending on acquisition, processing, and analysis methods. The SD of a new PET measure can be estimated from a known SD if the ratios of available coincident counts between the two PET scanner acquisitions are known and both employ the same ROI definition. Results suggest it is feasible to use PET/CTs from different vendors and sites in clinical trials if they are properly cross‐calibrated.

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 · 10.1118/1.3499298

Cites

41 of 41 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Doot, R. K., Scheuermann, J. S., Christian, P. E., Karp, J. S., & Kinahan, P. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Doot, R. K.
ORCID
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-10-29
Volume
37
Issue
11
Pages
6035-6046
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
DOI
10.1118/1.3499298
PMC
PMC2988835
OpenAlex
W1997504100
Cited by
82
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Medical Physics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • SNM Student Fellowship
  • U.S. NCI (24XS036-004 (RIDER))
  • U.S. NIH (CA74135, CA113941, CA115870, CA124573)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Keywords
PET/CT, measurement variance, measurement bias, repeatability, reproducibility, recovery coefficient, object size, iterative reconstruction, image smoothing, noise correlation, coincidence counts, image quality phantom
MeSH terms
Air, Calibration, Equipment Design, Germanium, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Materials Testing, Radioisotopes, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Water, Reproducibility of Results, Phantoms, Imaging, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, 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