Quality assessment of positron emission tomography scans: recommendations for future multicentre trials

Abstract Background: Standardization protocols and guidelines for positron emission tomography (PET) in multicenter trials are available, despite a large variability in image acquisition and reconstruction parameters exist. In this study, we investigated the compliance of PET scans to the guidelines of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). From these results, we provide recommendations for future multicenter studies using PET. Material and methods: Patients included in a multicenter randomized phase II study had repeated PET scans for early response assessment. Relevant acquisition and reconstruction parameters were extracted from the digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) header of the images. The PET image parameters were compared to the guidelines of the EANM for tumor imaging version 1.0 recommended parameters. Results: From the 223 included patients, 167 baseline scans and 118 response scans were available from 15 hospitals. Scans of 19% of the patients had an uptake time that fulfilled the Uniform Protocols for Imaging in Clinical Trials response assessment criteria. The average quality score over all hospitals was 69%. Scans with a non-compliant uptake time had a larger standard deviation of the mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean) of the liver than scans with compliant uptake times. Conclusions: Although a standardization protocol was agreed on, there was a large variability in imaging parameters. For future, multicenter studies including PET imaging a prospective central quality review during patient inclusion is needed to improve compliance with image standardization protocols as defined by EANM.

[1]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  SUV varies with time after injection in (18)F-FDG PET of breast cancer: characterization and method to adjust for time differences. , 2003, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[2]  W. Oyen,et al.  Chemotherapy Response Evaluation with 18F-FDG PET in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials , 2008, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[4]  R. Wahl,et al.  From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  W. Oyen,et al.  FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0 , 2009, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[6]  A. Scott,et al.  Compliance with PET acquisition protocols for therapeutic monitoring of erlotinib therapy in an international trial for patients with non-small cell lung cancer , 2011, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[7]  J. Marcus,et al.  First-line erlotinib and bevacizumab in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II study including molecular imaging. , 2011, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[8]  R. Wahl,et al.  Variations in PET/CT Methodology for Oncologic Imaging at U.S. Academic Medical Centers: An Imaging Response Assessment Team Survey , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[9]  Philippe Lambin,et al.  Response Assessment Using 18F-FDG PET Early in the Course of Radiotherapy Correlates with Survival in Advanced-Stage Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[10]  M. Piccart,et al.  Serial FDG-PET/CT for early outcome prediction in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy. , 2012, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[11]  Andre Dekker,et al.  Prognostic value of metabolic metrics extracted from baseline positron emission tomography images in non-small cell lung cancer , 2013, Acta oncologica.

[12]  Eric J. W. Visser,et al.  FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0 , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[13]  A Sitek,et al.  Sensitivity estimation in time-of-flight list-mode positron emission tomography. , 2015, Medical physics.

[14]  H. Groen,et al.  A randomized phase II study comparing paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab with or without nitroglycerin patches in patients with stage IV nonsquamous nonsmall-cell lung cancer: NVALT12 (NCT01171170)†. , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[15]  W. Oyen,et al.  Retrospective quality control review of FDG scans in the imaging sub-study of PALETTE EORTC 62072/VEG110727: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[16]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Summary of the UPICT Protocol for 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging in Oncology Clinical Trials , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[17]  R. Boellaard,et al.  Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[18]  R. Korn,et al.  Positron emission tomography response evaluation from a randomized phase III trial of weekly nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone for patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas† , 2016, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[19]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  [18F]FDG PET/CT-based response assessment of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer treated with paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab with or without nitroglycerin patches , 2016, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[20]  Philippe Lambin,et al.  Quantitative radiomics studies for tissue characterization: a review of technology and methodological procedures , 2017, The British journal of radiology.

[21]  S. Jakobsen,et al.  FDG-PET reproducibility in tumor-bearing mice: comparing a traditional SUV approach with a tumor-to-brain tissue ratio approach , 2017, Acta oncologica.

[22]  S. Jakobsen,et al.  Hypoxia positron emission tomography imaging: combining information on perfusion and tracer retention to improve hypoxia specificity , 2017, Acta oncologica.

[23]  Anne Bol,et al.  Evolution of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose and [18F]fluoroazomycin arabinoside PET uptake distributions in lung tumours during radiation therapy , 2017, Acta oncologica.