JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schöder, H.
Right arrow Articles by Yeung, H. W.D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schöder, H.
Right arrow Articles by Yeung, H. W.D.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Vol. 45 No. 4 559-566
© 2004 by Society of Nuclear Medicine


Clinical Investigations

Clinical Implications of Different Image Reconstruction Parameters for Interpretation of Whole-Body PET Studies in Cancer Patients

Heiko Schöder, MD1, Yusuf E. Erdi, DSc2, Kenneth Chao, BS1, Mithat Gonen, PhD3, Steven M. Larson, MD1 and Henry W.D. Yeung, MD1

1 Department of Radiology/Nuclear Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
2 Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
3 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York

The standardized uptake value (SUV) is the most commonly used parameter to quantify the intensity of radiotracer uptake in tumors. Previous studies suggested that measurements of 18F-FDG accumulation in tissue might be affected by the image reconstruction method, but the clinical relevance of these findings has not been assessed. Methods: Phantom studies were performed and clinical whole-body 18F-FDG PET images of 85 cancer patients were analyzed. All images were reconstructed using either filtered backprojection (FBP) with measured attenuation correction (MAC) or iterative reconstruction (IR) with segmented attenuation correction (SAC). In a subset of 15 patients, images were reconstructed using all 4 combinations of IR+SAC, IR+MAC, FBP+SAC, and FBP+MAC. For phantom studies, a sphere containing 18F-FDG was placed in a water-filled cylinder and the activity concentration of that sphere was measured in FBP and IR reconstructed images using all 4 combinations. Clinical studies were displayed simultaneously and identical regions of interest (ROIs, 50 pixels) were placed in liver, urinary bladder, and tumor tissue in both image sets. SUV max (maximal counts per pixel in ROI) and SUV avg (average counts per pixel) were measured. Results: In phantom studies, measurements from FBP images underestimated the true activity concentration to a greater degree than those from IR images (20% vs. 5% underestimation). In patient studies, SUV derived from FBP images were consistently lower than those from IR images in both normal and tumor tissue: Tumor SUV max with IR+SAC was 9.6 ± 4.5, with IR+MAC it was 7.7 ± 3.5, with FBP+MAC it was 6.9 ± 3.0, and with FBP+SAC it was 8.6 ± 4.1 (all P < 0.01 vs. IR+SAC). Compared with IR+SAC, SUV from FBP+MAC images were 25%–30% lower. Similar discrepancies were noted for liver and bladder. Discrepancies between measurements became more apparent with increasing 18F-FDG concentration in tissue. Conclusion: SUV measurements in whole-body PET studies are affected by the applied methods for both image reconstruction and attenuation correction. This should be considered when serial PET studies are done in cancer patients. Moreover, if SUV is used for tissue characterization, different cutoff values should be applied, depending on the chosen method for image reconstruction and attenuation correction.

Key Words: PET • image reconstruction • standardized uptake value • cancer • 18F-FDG




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Nucl. Med. Technol.Home page
B. Sanghera, G. Lowe, D. Wellstead, J. Lowe, J. Chambers, and W. Wong
Scan-Time Reduction Using Noise-Matched Images in 2- and 3-Dimensional Bismuth Germanate PET/CT: Clinical Study in Head and Neck Cancer
J. Nucl. Med. Technol., June 1, 2009; 37(2): 74 - 82.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
A. Noy, H. Schoder, M. Gonen, M. Weissler, K. Ertelt, C. Cohler, C. Portlock, P. Hamlin, and H. W. D. Yeung
The majority of transformed lymphomas have high standardized uptake values (SUVs) on positron emission tomography (PET) scanning similar to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)
Ann. Onc., March 1, 2009; 20(3): 508 - 512.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
G. S.P. Meirelles, Y. E. Erdi, S. A. Nehmeh, O. D. Squire, S. M. Larson, J. L. Humm, and H. Schoder
Deep-Inspiration Breath-Hold PET/CT: Clinical Findings with a New Technique for Detection and Characterization of Thoracic Lesions
J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2007; 48(5): 712 - 719.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
W. Jentzen, L. Freudenberg, E. G. Eising, M. Heinze, W. Brandau, and A. Bockisch
Segmentation of PET Volumes by Iterative Image Thresholding
J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1): 108 - 114.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
M. Picchio, U. Treiber, A. J. Beer, S. Metz, P. Bossner, H. van Randenborgh, R. Paul, G. Weirich, M. Souvatzoglou, R. Hartung, et al.
Value of 11C-Choline PET and Contrast-Enhanced CT for Staging of Bladder Cancer: Correlation with Histopathologic Findings
J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2006; 47(6): 938 - 944.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
O. Mawlawi, J. J. Erasmus, R. F. Munden, T. Pan, A. E. Knight, H. A. Macapinlac, D. A. Podoloff, and M. Chasen
Quantifying the Effect of IV Contrast Media on Integrated PET/CT: Clinical Evaluation
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2006; 186(2): 308 - 319.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
H. Schoder, A. Noy, M. Gonen, L. Weng, D. Green, Y. E. Erdi, S. M. Larson, and H. W.D. Yeung
Intensity of 18Fluorodeoxyglucose Uptake in Positron Emission Tomography Distinguishes Between Indolent and Aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
J. Clin. Oncol., July 20, 2005; 23(21): 4643 - 4651.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
G. J. Kelloff, J. M. Hoffman, B. Johnson, H. I. Scher, B. A. Siegel, E. Y. Cheng, B. D. Cheson, J. O'Shaughnessy, K. Z. Guyton, D. A. Mankoff, et al.
Progress and Promise of FDG-PET Imaging for Cancer Patient Management and Oncologic Drug Development
Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2005; 11(8): 2785 - 2808.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
K. Higashi, K. Ito, Y. Hiramatsu, T. Ishikawa, T. Sakuma, I. Matsunari, G. Kuga, K. Miura, T. Higuchi, H. Tonami, et al.
18F-FDG Uptake by Primary Tumor as a Predictor of Intratumoral Lymphatic Vessel Invasion and Lymph Node Involvement in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Analysis of a Multicenter Study
J. Nucl. Med., February 1, 2005; 46(2): 267 - 273.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
P. Y. Salaun, R. K. Grewal, I. Dodamane, H. W. Yeung, S. M. Larson, and H. W. Strauss
An Analysis of the 18F-FDG Uptake Pattern in the Stomach
J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2005; 46(1): 48 - 51.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Copyright © 2004 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine.