Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportTechnologist

Clinical assessment of HD-PET reconstruction in oncology PET imaging

Jennifer Frye, Sarah Frye, Richard Laforest, Keith Fischer and Farrokh Dehdashti
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2014, 55 (supplement 1) 2518;
Jennifer Frye
1Nuclear Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah Frye
1Nuclear Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard Laforest
1Nuclear Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Keith Fischer
1Nuclear Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Farrokh Dehdashti
1Nuclear Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

2518

Objectives Iterative PET image reconstruction modeling the camera response offers the advantage of improving the spatial resolution while maintaining image noise. As such algorithms are becoming more widely used, in this study we evaluate the clinical applicability of such algorithms for lesion detectability and SUV measurements

Methods PET/CT studies in 10 oncologic subjects consisting of 6 females and 4 males with an average age of 57.2 years (18F-FDG in 9 and 64Cu-ATSM in 1) previously performed on a Biograph-40 PET/CT scanner were retrieved and reconstructed with 3D-OSEM (2 iterations/ 8 subsets - 5 mm Gaussian post-reconstruction filter and using HD PET reconstruction ( 2 iterations, 21 subsets, 2 mm Gaussian post-reconstruction filter). The images were evaluated by two blinded experienced nuclear medicine physicians and image quality was evaluated for the confidence in detecting lesions and the lesion’s maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) value was measured. In addition, the average SUV (SUVaverg) values of the liver and blood pool were measured and recorded in both sets of images.

Results For the oncology patients, a total of 24 tumor foci were identified and those were better identified in 67% of the cases (scores of 60% and 73%, respectively for each reader) with HD PET. Peak tumor SUV values were in average 29% higher with HD PET reconstruction relative to the non-HD reconstruction. Liver SUVaverage values were not significantly different between HD and non-HD (HD = 2.45 ± 0.41 and non-HD = 2.29 ± 0.25, p < 0.01) while the blood pool SUVavergshowed a small significant difference (HD = 2.03 ± 0.34 vs non-HD=1.92 ± 0.19, p = 0.19), with consistent measurements from both readers.

Conclusions HD PET image reconstruction showed better lesion detectability and increased SUVmax in the majority of the lesions studied which leads to improved diagnostic accuracy and greater confidence in lesion detectability.

Research Support Department of Radiology, Washington University and Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc.

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 55, Issue supplement 1
May 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Clinical assessment of HD-PET reconstruction in oncology PET imaging
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Clinical assessment of HD-PET reconstruction in oncology PET imaging
Jennifer Frye, Sarah Frye, Richard Laforest, Keith Fischer, Farrokh Dehdashti
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2014, 55 (supplement 1) 2518;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Clinical assessment of HD-PET reconstruction in oncology PET imaging
Jennifer Frye, Sarah Frye, Richard Laforest, Keith Fischer, Farrokh Dehdashti
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2014, 55 (supplement 1) 2518;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Technologist

  • The Study on the Correlation of the Ejection Fraction(EF) of Multi Gated Blood Pool Scan(MUGA) and Echocardiography according to the condition of cardiac function
  • Factors Impacting Clinical Protocol Optimisation and SUVmax uncertainty in [68Ga]-PSMA PET Imaging
  • Effect of collimator choice on 111In liquid gastric measurements
Show more Technologist

Technologist Papers III: Instrumentation & Data Analysis

  • Sensitivity stability of a 16 slices PET/CT scanner operating in 3-D mode
  • Development of the ‘one-click’ 18F-NaF module
Show more Technologist Papers III: Instrumentation & Data Analysis

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire