Time-of-flight PET/CT using low-activity protocols: potential implications for cancer therapy monitoring

IntroductionAccurate quantification of tumour tracer uptake is essential for therapy monitoring by sequential PET imaging. In this study we investigated to what extent a reduction in administered activity, synonymous with an overall reduction in repeated patient exposure, compromised the accuracy of quantitative measures using time-of-flight PET/CT.MethodsWe evaluated the effect of reducing the emission count statistics, using a 64-channel GEMINI TF PET/CT system. Experiments were performed with the NEMA IEC body phantom at target-to-background ratios of 4:1 and 10:1. Emission data for 10 s, 30 s, 1 min, 2 min, 5 min and 30 min were acquired. Volumes of interest fitted to the CT outline of the spheres were used to calculate recovery coefficients for each target-to-background ratio and for different reconstruction algorithms. Whole-body time-of-flight PET/CT was performed in 20 patients 62±4 min after injection of 350±40 MBq (range 269–411 MBq) 18F-FDG. From the acquired 2 min per bed position list mode data, simulated 1-min, 30-s and 15-s PET acquisitions were created. PET images were reconstructed using the TOF-OSEM algorithm and analysed for differences in SUV measurements resulting from the use of lower administered activity as simulated by reduced count statistics.ResultsIn the phantom studies, overall we identified no significant quantitation bias over a wide range of acquired counts. With acquisition times as short as 10 s, lesions as small as 1 cm in diameter could still be identified. In the patient studies, visual analysis showed that emission scans as short as 15 s per bed position sufficiently identified tumour lesions for quantification. As the acquisition time per bed position decreased, the differences in SUV quantification of tumour lesions increased relative to the 2-min reference protocol. However, SUVs remained within the limits of reproducibility required for therapy monitoring. Measurements of SUVmean within the region of interest were less prone to noise than SUVmax, and with the 30-s per bed position 95% confidence limits were ±11% or ±0.7 SUV.ConclusionShort time acquisitions, synonymous with reduced injected activity, performed on a TOF-based PET/CT system are feasible without encountering significant bias. This could translate into clinical protocols using lower administered activities particularly for serial PET studies.

[1]  M Schwaiger,et al.  Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. , 1999, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[2]  Michael E. Phelps,et al.  Quantitation in Positron Emission Computed Tomography , 1980 .

[3]  Adriaan A. Lammertsma,et al.  Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial , 2005, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[4]  M. Schwaiger,et al.  Comparison of different SUV-based methods for monitoring cytotoxic therapy with FDG PET , 2004, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[5]  Wolfgang A Weber,et al.  Monitoring cancer treatment with PET/CT: does it make a difference? , 2007, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[6]  R. Boellaard Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data Analysis , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[7]  A J Reader,et al.  Statistical list-mode image reconstruction for the high resolution research tomograph. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  Suleman Surti,et al.  Experimental evaluation of a simple lesion detection task with time-of-flight PET , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  Joel S. Karp,et al.  Investigation of time-of-flight benefit for fully 3-DPET , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  J. Karp,et al.  Systematic and Distributed Time-of-Flight List Mode PET Reconstruction , 2006, 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[11]  R. Boellaard,et al.  Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  E. Yoshikawa,et al.  Single 20-Second Acquisition of Deep-Inspiration Breath-Hold PET/CT: Clinical Feasibility for Lung Cancer , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  T. Budinger Time-of-flight positron emission tomography: status relative to conventional PET. , 1983, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[14]  R. D'Agostino,et al.  A Suggestion for Using Powerful and Informative Tests of Normality , 1990 .

[15]  A. Elster,et al.  Recommendations on the Use of 18F-FDG PET in Oncology , 2009 .

[16]  Heinrich R Schelbert,et al.  Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006. , 2007, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[17]  S. Matej,et al.  Iterative image reconstruction using geometrically ordered subsets with list-mode data , 2004, IEEE Symposium Conference Record Nuclear Science 2004..

[18]  Robert M. Lewitt,et al.  Application of the row action maximum likelihood algorithm with spherical basis functions to clinical PET imaging , 2001 .

[19]  Claude Nahmias,et al.  Reproducibility of Standardized Uptake Value Measurements Determined by 18F-FDG PET in Malignant Tumors , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[20]  W. Weber Positron emission tomography as an imaging biomarker. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  Suleman Surti,et al.  Benefit of Time-of-Flight in PET: Experimental and Clinical Results , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[22]  E. Hoffman,et al.  Quantitation in Positron Emission Computed Tomography: 4. Effect of Accidental Coincidences , 1981, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[23]  J. Karp,et al.  Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. , 2007, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[24]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  Accuracy of 3-Dimensional Reconstruction Algorithms for the High-Resolution Research Tomograph , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[25]  Wolfgang A Weber,et al.  Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET. , 2005, Radiologic clinics of North America.