HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schöder, H. Articles by Yeung, H. W.D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schöder, H. Articles by Yeung, H. W.D.

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

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:

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]

				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]