Multicenter survey of PET/CT protocol parameters that affect standardized uptake values

Abstract. Clinical trials that evaluate cancer treatments may benefit from positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, which for many cancers can discriminate between effective and ineffective treatments. However, the image metrics used to quantify disease and evaluate treatment may be biased by many factors related to clinical protocols and PET system settings, many of which are site- and/or manufacturer-specific. An observational study was conducted using two surveys that were designed to record key sources of bias and variability in PET imaging. These were distributed to hospitals across the United States. The first round of surveys was designed and distributed by the American College of Radiology’s Centers of Quantitative Imaging Excellence program in 2011. The second survey expanded on the first and was completed by the National Cancer Institute’s Quantitative Imaging Network. Sixty-three sites responded to the first survey and 36 to the second. Key imaging parameters varied across participating sites. The range of reported methods for image acquisition and reconstruction suggests that signal biases are not matched between sites. Patient preparation was also inconsistent, potentially contributing additional variability. For multicenter clinical trials, efforts to control biases through standardization of imaging procedures should precede patient measurements.

[1]  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.

[2]  Janet S. Reddin,et al.  Qualification of National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers for Quantitative PET/CT Imaging in Clinical Trials , 2017, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Analytic 3D image reconstruction using all detected events , 1989 .

[4]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy. , 2010, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[5]  A. Dirksen,et al.  Multimodality approach to mediastinal staging in non-small cell lung cancer. Faults and benefits of PET-CT: a randomised trial , 2010, Thorax.

[6]  Martin A Lodge,et al.  A Practical, Automated Quality Assurance Method for Measuring Spatial Resolution in PET , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[7]  F. Bozzetti,et al.  The Influence of Blood Glucose Levels on [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose (Fdg) Uptake in Cancer: A Pet Study in Liver Metastases from Colorectal Carcinomas , 1997, Tumori.

[8]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Design considerations for using PET as a response measure in single site and multicenter clinical trials. , 2012, Academic radiology.

[9]  T. Turkington,et al.  A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  Darrin Byrd,et al.  Biases in Multicenter Longitudinal PET Standardized Uptake Value Measurements. , 2014, Translational oncology.

[11]  R. Boellaard,et al.  Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a Multicenter Phase I Study of Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Malignancies , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  Wolfgang A Weber,et al.  Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  P. Christian,et al.  Quantitative PET/CT Scanner Performance Characterization Based Upon the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Clinical Trials Network Oncology Clinical Simulator Phantom , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[14]  T. Beyer,et al.  Variations in Clinical PET/CT Operations: Results of an International Survey of Active PET/CT Users , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  Jason P Fine,et al.  Influence of reconstruction iterations on 18F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[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]  Darrin Byrd,et al.  A post-hoc methodology for harmonizing PET image reconstruction protocols , 2014 .

[18]  P. Lecumberri,et al.  Evaluation of spatial resolution of a PET scanner through the simulation and experimental measurement of the recovery coefficient , 2010, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[19]  Wolfgang A Weber,et al.  Assessing Tumor Response to Therapy , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[20]  Michael E Casey,et al.  PET performance measurements using the NEMA NU 2-2001 standard. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[21]  M. Boers,et al.  Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial , 2002, The Lancet.

[22]  H. Malcolm Hudson,et al.  Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[23]  Paul E Kinahan,et al.  Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium. , 2010, Medical physics.

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

[25]  Darrin Byrd,et al.  Assessment of PET/CT reconstruction harmonization through Gaussian post- filtration. , 2016 .

[26]  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.

[27]  J. Thie Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[28]  L. Pierce,et al.  A Digital Reference Object to Analyze Calculation Accuracy of PET Standardized Uptake Value. , 2015, Radiology.

[29]  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.

[30]  R L Wahl,et al.  Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake at PET. , 1995, Radiology.

[31]  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.