Comparison of Imaging Protocols for 18F-FDG PET/CT in Overweight Patients: Optimizing Scan Duration Versus Administered Dose
Open accessAbstract
UNLABELLED: The quality of (18)F-FDG PET/CT images of overweight patients is often degraded. We evaluated the effect of optimizing injected dose or acquisition time on the quality of images of overweight patients using lutetium oxyorthosilicate PET/CT with high-performance detector electronics. METHODS: We initially retrospectively measured radioactivity concentrations and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) in the liver relative to body weight for 80 patients who had undergone (18)F-FDG PET/CT according to our standard protocol (injected dose, 3.7 MBq/kg; acquisition time, 2 min/bed position). The patients were grouped (n = 20 per group) according to baseline body weight as G1 ( or=85 kg). We compared the SNRs of G1 with those of G2, G3, and G4 and calculated the ratio squared as a factor to correct the acquisition parameters for overweight patients. We then prospectively enrolled 120 patients according to the same body weight criteria. We multiplied the correction factors to optimize injected doses or acquisition times and defined dose-adjusted groups (n = 20 per group) and time-adjusted groups (n = 20 per group). G2 dose was defined as 5.59 +/- 0.19 MBq/kg, G3 dose as 7.29 +/- 0.33 MBq/kg, and G4 dose as 8.88 +/- 0.43 MBq/kg. G2 time was defined as 3 min/bed position, G3 time as 4 min/bed position, and G4 time as 5 min/bed position. RESULTS: Although liver activities did not significantly differ among G1 through G4 irrespective of patient weight, SNR progressively decreased as patient weight increased. The liver activities of G2 dose, G3 dose, and G4 dose were, respectively, 1.4-, 1.9-, and 2.5-fold higher than those of the baseline counterparts. Nevertheless, the increased liver activities of G2 dose, G3 dose, and G4 dose did not significantly affect SNR, compared with the baseline groups. In contrast, the SNR of G4 time was significantly higher than that of G4. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the quality of images acquired from heavier patients can be maintained only by scanning for longer periods. Increasing the dose per kilogram of body weight did not improve the quality of lutetium oxyorthosilicate PET/CT images.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
SUVmean and, to a lesser degree, SUVpeak are relatively stable even after reduction of acquisition time to 50% or less.
“This is especially true for SUVmean and, to a lesser degree, for SUVpeak, which are both relatively stable even after reduction of acquisition time to 50% or less [76,77,78,79,80].”
From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [77]
The Results (page not provided) report no significant difference in liver radioactivity between groups scanned for 2 minutes and time-adjusted groups scanned for up to 5 minutes per bed position. This offers limited support for stability of a liver mean-uptake measure at shorter acquisition times, but the paper does not report SUVpeak or establish stability of SUVmean generally; it compared different patients rather than shortening scans in the same patients. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredImage quality, namely image noise, in overweight patients >80-90 kg benefits especially from increased acquisition time per bed position.
“These studies have demonstrated that image quality (namely image noise) in overweight patients >80–90 kg benefits especially from increased acquisition time per bed position [77,151,152].”
From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [77]
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
Shankar, L. K., Hoffman, J. M., Bacharach, S. L., Graham, M. M., Karp, J. S., Lammertsma, A. A., Larson, S. M., Mankoff, D. A., Siegel, B. A., den Abbeele, A. V., et al. (2006) · PubMed · Cited by 677 · see citing works
Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with F-18 FDG PET/CT
Delbeke, D., Coleman, R. E., Guiberteau, M. J., Brown, M. L., Royal, H. D., Siegel, B. A., Townsend, D. W., Berland, L. L., Parker, J. A., Hübner, K. F., et al. (2006) · Cited by 620 · see citing works
(2004) · PubMed · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Watson, C. C., Casey, M., Bendriem, B., Carney, J., Townsend, D. W., Eberl, S., Meikle, S. R., & DiFilippo, F. P. (2005) · PubMed · Cited by 138 · see citing works
(2005) · PubMed · Cited by 103 · see citing works
FDG-PET: procedure guidelines for tumour imaging
Bombardieri, E., Aktolun, C., Baum, R. P., Bishof-Delaloye, A., Buscombe, J. R., Chatal, J. F., Maffioli, L. S., Moncayo, R., Mortelmans, L., & Reske, S. N. (2003) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-003-1355-2 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Optimal dose of 18 F-FDG required for whole-body PET using an LSO PET camera
Everaert, H., Vanhove, C., Lahoutte, T., et al. (2003) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-003-1317-8 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Impact of body habitus on quantitative and qualitative image quality in whole-body FDG-PET
Tatsumi, M., Clark, P., Nakamoto, Y., & Wahl, R. L. (2003) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-002-0980-5 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
PET/CT BiographTM Sensation 16
Bercier, Y., Schwaiger, M., Ziegler, S., et al. (2006) · Nuklearmedizin - NuclearMedicine · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1625926 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Nutt, R. (2002) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-002-0987-y · Cited by 28 · see citing works
The AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents
Rzeszotarski, M. S. (1999) · Radiographics · doi:10.1148/radiographics.19.3.g99ma33765 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
NEC: some coincidences are more equivalent than others.
Badawi, R. D., & Dahlbom, M. L. (2005) · PubMed · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Count-rate analysis from clinical scans in PET with LSO detectors
Bonutti, F., Cattaruzzi, E., Cragnolini, E., et al. (2008) · Radiation Protection Dosimetry · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncn153 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Ultra Low Dose CT Attenuation Correction Maps for Emission Computed Tomography
Kadhem, H., Rodriguez, D., Tena, J. R., et al. (2006) · 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record · doi:10.1109/nssmic.2006.354333 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [10]10. The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine. Guideline for PET imaging by using 18 F-FDG manufactured at hospital cyclotron. Kaku Igaku. 2001;38:131-137.
- [13]13. Dunn OJ. Multiple contrasts using rank sums. Technometrics. 1964;5:241- 252.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0
Boellaard, R., Delgado-Bolton, R., Oyen, W. J. G., Giammarile, F., Tatsch, K., Eschner, W., Verzijlbergen, F. J., Barrington, S. F., Pike, L. C., Weber, W. A., et al. (2015) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x · Cited by 3,303 · see citing works
Variations in Clinical PET/CT Operations: Results of an International Survey of Active PET/CT Users
Beyer, T., Czernin, J., & Freudenberg, L. S. (2011) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.110.079624 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Sekine, T., Delso, G., Zeimpekis, K. G., de Galiza Barbosa, F., ter Voert, E. E. G. W., Huellner, M., & Veit-Haibach, P. (2018) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2017162305 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Improvement in PET/CT image quality in overweight patients with PSF and TOF
Taniguchi, T., Akamatsu, G., Kasahara, Y., Mitsumoto, K., Baba, S., Tsutsui, Y., Himuro, K., Mikasa, S., Kidera, D., & Sasaki, M. (2015) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-014-0912-z · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation
Rogasch, J. M. M., Hofheinz, F., van Heek, L., Voltin, C.-A., Boellaard, R., & Kobe, C. (2022) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics12020451 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“These studies have demonstrated that image quality (namely image noise) in overweight patients >80–90 kg benefits especially from increased acquisition time per bed position [77,151,152].”
BackgroundPatient-specific optimisation of administered activity and acquisition times for 18F-FDG PET imaging
Wickham, F., McMeekin, H., Burniston, M., McCool, D., Pencharz, D., Skillen, A., & Wagner, T. (2017) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-016-0250-3 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Pilz, J., Hehenwarter, L., Zimmermann, G., Rendl, G., Schweighofer-Zwink, G., Beheshti, M., & Pirich, C. (2021) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-021-00784-9 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Masuda, Y., Kondo, C., Matsuo, Y., Uetani, M., & Kusakabe, K.
- Affiliations
- Tokyo Women's Medical University (JP)
- Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital (JP)
- Nagasaki University (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Kondo, Chisato
- Venue
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine
- Publisher
- Society of Nuclear Medicine
- Published
- 2009-05-14
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 844-848
- ISSN
- 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
- 2159-662X
- OpenAlex
- W2142966064
- Cited by
- 104
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 5.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- overweight patients, obesity, imaging protocol optimization, acquisition time, signal-to-noise ratio, image quality, radiation dose reduction, liver-to-spleen ratio
- MeSH terms
- Female, Humans, Liver, Male, Radiation Dosage, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Radiopharmaceuticals, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Positron-Emission Tomography, Overweight
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
