Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters

  • Original article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Standardised uptake values (SUVs) depend on acquisition, reconstruction and region of interest (ROI) parameters. SUV quantification in multi-centre trials therefore requires standardisation of acquisition and analysis protocols. However, standardisation is difficult owing to the use of different scanners, image reconstruction and data analysis software. In this study we evaluated whether SUVs, obtained at three different institutes, may be directly compared after calibration and correction for inter-institute differences.

Methods

First, an anthropomorphic thorax phantom containing variously sized spheres and activities, simulating tumours, was scanned and processed in each institute to evaluate differences in scanner calibration. Secondly, effects of image reconstruction and ROI method on recovery coefficients were studied. Next, SUVs were derived for tumours in 23 subjects. Of these 23 patients, four and ten were scanned in two institutes on an HR+ PET scanner and nine were scanned in one institute on an ECAT EXACT PET scanner. All phantom and clinical data were reconstructed using iterative reconstruction with various iterations, with both measured (MAC) and segmented attenuation correction (SAC) and at various image resolutions. Activity concentrations (AC) or SUVs were derived using various ROI isocontours.

Results

Phantom data revealed differences in SUV quantification of up to 30%. After application-specific calibration, recovery coefficients obtained in each institute were equal to within 15%. Varying the ROI isocontour value resulted in a predictable change in SUV (or AC) for both phantom and clinical data. Variation of image resolution resulted in a predictable change in SUV quantification for large spheres/tumours (>5 cc) only. For smaller tumours (<2 cc), differences of up to 40% were found between high (7 mm) and low (10 mm) resolution images. Similar differences occurred when data were reconstructed with a small number of iterations. Finally, no significant differences between MAC and SAC reconstructed data were observed, except for tumours near the diaphragm.

Conclusion

Standardisation of acquisition, reconstruction and ROI methods is preferred for SUV quantification in multi-centre trials. Small unavoidable differences in methodology can be accommodated by performing a phantom study to assess inter-institute correction factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Avril NE, Weber WA. Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET. Radiol Clin North Am 2005;43:189–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Measuring response to chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: methodological considerations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:S103–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Scheidhauer K, Walter C, Seemann MD. FDG PET and other imaging modalities in the primary diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:S70–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vansteenkiste J, Fischer BM, Dooms C, Mortensen J. Positron-emission tomography in prognostic and therapeutic assessment of lung cancer: systematic review. Lancet Oncol 2004;5:531–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wahl RL, Zasadny K, Helvie M, Hutchins GD, Weber B, Cody R. Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:2101–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Weber WA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R, Hanauske AR, Schwaiger M. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1771–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:1773–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1519–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bourguet P, Blanc-Vincent MP, Boneu A, Bosquet L, Chauffert B, Corone C, et al. Summary of the standards, options and recommendations for the use of positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDP-PET scanning) in oncology (2002). Br J Cancer 2003;89 Suppl 1:S84–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Coleman RE, Laymon CM, Turkington TG. FDG imaging of lung nodules: a phantom study comparing SPECT, camera-based PET, and dedicated PET. Radiology 1999;210:823–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schelbert HR, Hoh CK, Royal HD, Brown M, Dahlbom MN, Dehdashti F, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging using fluorine-18-FDG. J Nucl Med 1998;39:1302–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Brix G, Zaers J, Adam LE, Bellemann ME, Ostertag H, Trojan H, et al. Performance evaluation of a whole-body PET scanner using the NEMA protocol. J Nucl Med 1997;38:1614–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wienhard K, Eriksson L, Grootoonk S, Casey M, Pietrzyk U, Heiss WD. Performance evaluation of the positron scanner ECAT EXACT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1992;16:804–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hudson HM, Larkin RS. Accelerated image reconstruction usig ordered subsets or projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1994;13:601–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Watson CC. New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 3D PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2000;47:1587–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Defrise M, Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Michel C, Sibomana M, Newport DF. Exact and approximate rebinning algorithms for 3-D PET data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1997;16:145–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Visvikis D, Cheze-LeRest C, Costa DC, Bomanji J, Gacinovic S, Ell PJ. Influence of OSEM and segmented attenuation correction in the calculation of standardised uptake values for [18F]FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:1326–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Boellaard R, van Lingen A, Lammertsma AA. Experimental and clinical evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) in dynamic PET: quantitative characteristics and effects on kinetic modeling. J Nucl Med 2001;42:808–17.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lartizien C, Kinahan PE, Swensson R, Comtat C, Lin M, Villemagne V, et al. Evaluating image reconstruction methods for tumor detection in 3-dimensional whole-body PET oncology imaging. J Nucl Med 2003;44:276–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jaskowiak CJ, Bianco JA, Perlman SB, Fine JP. Influence of reconstruction iterations on 18F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values. J Nucl Med 2005;46:424–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Krak NC, Boellaard R, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JW, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van Balen S, Hoving BG, Boellaard R, Lammertsma AA. Quality control and calibration of the ECAT HR plus PET scanner. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26:1022.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Greuter HN, Boellaard R, van Lingen A, Franssen EJ, Lammertsma AA. Measurement of 18F-FDG concentrations in blood samples: comparison of direct calibration and standard solution methods. J Nucl Med Technol 2003;31:206–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1431–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. van der Weerdt AP, Boellaard R, Knaapen P, Visser CA, Lammertsma AA, Visser FC. Postinjection transmission scanning in myocardial 18F-FDG PET studies using both filtered backprojection and iterative reconstruction. J Nucl Med 2004;45:169–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith IC, Welch AE, Hutcheon AW, Miller ID, Payne S, Chilcott F, et al. Positron emission tomography using [18F]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose to predict the pathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1676–88.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Wit M, Ivancevic V, Bares R, Munz DL. Multicenter comparison of calibration and cross calibration of PET scanners. J Nucl Med 2002;43:635–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald Boellaard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Westerterp, M., Pruim, J., Oyen, W. et al. 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 34, 392–404 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-006-0224-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-006-0224-1

Keywords

Navigation