Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data Analysis

Quantitative 18F-FDG PET is increasingly being recognized as an important tool for diagnosis, determination of prognosis, and response monitoring in oncology. However, PET quantification with, for example, standardized uptake values (SUVs) is affected by many technical and physiologic factors. As a result, some of the variations in the literature on SUV-based patient outcomes are explained by differences in 18F-FDG PET study methods. Various technical and clinical studies have been performed to understand the factors affecting PET quantification. On the basis of the results of those studies, several recommendations and guidelines have been proposed with the aims of improving the image quality and the quantitative accuracy of 18F-FDG PET studies. In this contribution, an overview of recommendations and guidelines for quantitative 18F-FDG PET studies in oncology is provided. Special attention is given to the rationale underlying certain recommendations and to some of the differences in various guidelines.

[1]  Clifford Goodman,et al.  Society of Nuclear Medicine , 1988 .

[2]  U Ruotsalainen,et al.  Influence of the blood glucose concentration on FDG uptake in cancer--a PET study. , 1993, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  J. Keyes SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? , 1995, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[4]  J M Hoffman,et al.  Optimum scanning protocol for FDG-PET evaluation of pulmonary malignancy. , 1995, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  L M Hamberg,et al.  Simplified measurement of deoxyglucose utilization rate. , 1996, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[6]  N. Gupta,et al.  Dependency of standardized uptake values of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose on body size: comparison of body surface area correction and lean body mass correction. , 1996, Nuclear medicine communications.

[7]  D. Mankoff,et al.  Tumor metabolic rates in sarcoma using FDG PET. , 1998, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  Norihiro Sadato,et al.  Non-invasive estimation of the net influx constant using the standardized uptake value for quantification of FDG uptake of tumours , 1998, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[9]  R L Wahl,et al.  Procedure guideline for tumor imaging using fluorine-18-FDG. Society of Nuclear Medicine. , 1998, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[10]  K. Herholz,et al.  Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. , 1999, European journal of cancer.

[11]  A. Lammertsma,et al.  Monitoring response to therapy in cancer using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytical methods , 2000, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  M. Graham,et al.  Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake. , 2000, Nuclear medicine and biology.

[13]  D. Visvikis,et al.  Influence of OSEM and segmented attenuation correction in the calculation of standardised uptake values for [18F]FDG PET , 2001, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[14]  J. Vansteenkiste,et al.  The role of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in respiratory oncology. , 2001, The European respiratory journal.

[15]  Johan Nuyts,et al.  Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[16]  Lilli Geworski,et al.  Multicenter comparison of calibration and cross calibration of PET scanners. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[17]  Mark Muzi,et al.  Quantitative positron emission tomography imaging to measure tumor response to therapy: what is the best method? , 2003, Molecular imaging and biology : MIB : the official publication of the Academy of Molecular Imaging.

[18]  Paul E Kinahan,et al.  Evaluating image reconstruction methods for tumor detection in 3-dimensional whole-body PET oncology imaging. , 2003, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[19]  B. Chauffert,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) , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.

[20]  Cyrill Burger,et al.  Cause and magnitude of the error induced by oral CT contrast agent in CT-based attenuation correction of PET emission studies. , 2003, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[21]  R. Wahl,et al.  Initial experience with oral contrast in PET/CT: phantom and clinical studies. , 2003, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[22]  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.

[23]  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.

[24]  W Vaalburg,et al.  The value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading and response to therapy of soft tissue and bone sarcomas; a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2004, Cancer treatment reviews.

[25]  Thomas Beyer,et al.  Acquisition protocol considerations for combined PET/CT imaging. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

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

[27]  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.

[28]  A. Pevsner,et al.  The CT motion quantitation of lung lesions and its impact on PET-measured SUVs. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[29]  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.

[30]  R. Coleman,et al.  Concurrent PET/CT with an integrated imaging system: intersociety dialogue from the joint working group of the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine, and the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[31]  T. Beyer,et al.  Optimized intravenous contrast administration for diagnostic whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[32]  S. Raman,et al.  Whole-body PET/CT: Spectrum of physiological variants, artifacts and interpretative pitfalls in cancer patients , 2005, Nuclear medicine communications.

[33]  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.

[34]  Otto S Hoekstra,et al.  Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[36]  W. Weber,et al.  PET for response assessment in oncology: radiotherapy and chemotherapy , 2005 .

[37]  Joos V Lebesque,et al.  Standardised FDG uptake: a prognostic factor for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer. , 2005, European journal of cancer.

[38]  Eric J. W. Visser,et al.  Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters , 2007, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[39]  Anne Bol,et al.  A gradient-based method for segmenting FDG-PET images: methodology and validation , 2007, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[40]  Adriaan A. Lammertsma,et al.  How should we analyse FDG PET studies for monitoring tumour response? , 2006, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[41]  Ursula Nestle,et al.  Practical integration of [18F]-FDG-PET and PET-CT in the planning of radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): the technical basis, ICRU-target volumes, problems, perspectives. , 2006, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[42]  Marc Kachelriess,et al.  Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[43]  Tinsu Pan,et al.  Quantifying the effect of IV contrast media on integrated PET/CT: clinical evaluation. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[44]  Joel Karp,et al.  Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[45]  Lawrence H Schwartz,et al.  18F-FDG PET as a candidate for "qualified biomarker": functional assessment of treatment response in oncology. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[46]  W. Weber Chaperoning drug development with PET. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[47]  D. Mankoff,et al.  Quantitative fluoroestradiol positron emission tomography imaging predicts response to endocrine treatment in breast cancer. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[48]  Sigrid Stroobants,et al.  Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[49]  The role of FDG PET in the management of lymphoma: practical guidelines. , 2007, Nuclear medicine communications.

[50]  James H Thrall,et al.  FDG-PET CT for tumor imaging. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[51]  D Visvikis,et al.  Fuzzy hidden Markov chains segmentation for volume determination and quantitation in PET. , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[52]  I. Buvat,et al.  Partial-Volume Effect in PET Tumor Imaging* , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[53]  PET/CT in cancer patient management. Introduction. , 2007, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[54]  PL2-03: New imaging techniques (PET, PET/CT, MRI, E(B)US.) for lung cancer staging and response assessment , 2007 .

[55]  Mark Muzi,et al.  Tumor-Specific Positron Emission Tomography Imaging in Patients: [18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose and Beyond , 2007, Clinical Cancer Research.

[56]  Klemens Scheidhauer,et al.  Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[57]  Integrated PET/CT in lung cancer imaging: history and technical aspects. , 2007, JBR-BTR : organe de la Societe royale belge de radiologie (SRBR) = orgaan van de Koninklijke Belgische Vereniging voor Radiologie.

[58]  Yusuf Emre Erdi,et al.  The Use of PET for Radiotherapy , 2007 .

[59]  W. Oyen,et al.  Predictive and prognostic value of FDG‐PET in nonsmall‐cell lung cancer , 2007, Cancer.

[60]  K. Murase,et al.  Variability of lesion detectability and standardized uptake value according to the acquisition procedure and reconstruction among five PET scanners , 2008, Annals of nuclear medicine.

[61]  R. Coleman,et al.  Recommendations on the Use of 18F-FDG PET in Oncology , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[62]  G Bosmans,et al.  Respiratory-gated CT as a tool for the simulation of breathing artifacts in PET and PET/CT. , 2006, Medical physics.

[63]  Reproducibility of SUV max for oncologic PET: Significant differences in quantification of the SAME study between PET-only and PET-CT analysis modes , 2008 .

[64]  A. Alavi,et al.  Quantitative Assessment of FDG Uptake in Brown Fat Using Standardized Uptake Value and Dual-Time-Point Scanning , 2008, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[65]  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.

[66]  Julie R. Gralow,et al.  Tumor metabolism and blood flow changes by positron emission tomography: relation to survival in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[67]  Andre Dekker,et al.  The integration of PET-CT scans from different hospitals into radiotherapy treatment planning. , 2008, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[68]  W. Oyen,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.

[69]  L. Schwartz,et al.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). , 2009, European journal of cancer.