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
Research ArticleOncology

Qualification of National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers for Quantitative PET/CT Imaging in Clinical Trials

Joshua S. Scheuermann, Janet S. Reddin, Adam Opanowski, Paul E. Kinahan, Barry A. Siegel, Lalitha K. Shankar and Joel S. Karp
Journal of Nuclear Medicine July 2017, 58 (7) 1065-1071; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.186759
Joshua S. Scheuermann
1Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Janet S. Reddin
1Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adam Opanowski
2American College of Radiology Imaging Network, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul E. Kinahan
3Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barry A. Siegel
4Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lalitha K. Shankar
5Cancer Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joel S. Karp
1Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    Image of 1 of 7 adjacent ROIs in liver regions used in body test cases.

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    (Left) Typical ROI used for uniformity analysis. (Right) Example of typical plot of mean SUVs per plane in ROI and calculation of maximum (max.) axial deviation (dev.) (MAD).

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    Image of ACR-approved PET phantom. Red ROIs are used for SUVmax, and blue ROIs are used for SUVpeak. Also shown are large background ROI (purple) and smaller green ROIs for cold cylinders. Latter ROIs were not used in this analysis.

  • FIGURE 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4.

    Recovery coefficients (defined as ratio of measured SUV to true SUV) as function of cylinder diameters for static brain (A) and body (B) acquisitions.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Uniform Phantom Results for Static Brain Protocol During T0 Period

    ManufacturerNo. of scannersVolume average SUV*MAD*
    GE361.00 ± 0.032.9% ± 1.2%
    Philips70.99 ± 0.038.5% ± 0.7%
    Siemens210.98 ± 0.053.4% ± 1.4%
    Combined640.99 ± 0.043.7% ± 2.1%
    • ↵* Reported as mean ± SD.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Uniform Phantom Results for Static Body Protocol During T0 Period

    ManufacturerNo. of scannersVolume average SUV*MAD*
    GE361.00 ± 0.035.1% ± 1.8%
    Philips70.97 ± 0.045.4% ± 2.0%
    Siemens211.00 ± 0.035.5% ± 2.1%
    Combined641.00 ± 0.035.3% ± 1.9%
    • ↵* Reported as mean ± SD.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Average Liver SUVs by Manufacturer

    ManufacturerNo. of casesLiver SUVSD
    GE622.110.44
    Philips142.060.43
    Siemens422.420.51
    • View popup
    TABLE 4

    Differences in Scanner Qualifications for 3 Time Periods

    T0T1T2
    ParameterNo.PercentageNo.PercentageNo.Percentage
    No. of scanners passing first time253834873567
    No. of scanners passing eventually39605131325
    Total no. of scanners passing6498391004892
    Total no. of scanners653952
    • View popup
    TABLE 5

    Frequencies of Specific Issues During Scanner Qualification*

    No. of scanners during:
    IssueT0 period (65 scanners)T2 period (44 scanners)†
    Uniformity problem70
    SUV outside specifications143
    Phantom filling issue43
    Reconstruction problem65
    Improper acquisition30
    Incomplete submission112
    Problem with forms51
    Total5014
    • ↵* Issues are ranked by subjective order of relative importance. Uniformity problem and SUV outside specifications are considered to be calibration issues, whereas remainder are attributable to operator error.

    • ↵† These scanners had submitted data for T0 period.

    • View popup
    TABLE 6

    Cross-Comparison of Passing Status on Initial Review for T0 and T2 Periods for 44 Scanners That Had Submitted Data for Both Qualification Reviews*

    Passing status for T2 period
    Passing status for T0 periodYesNoTotal
    Yes11617
    No20727
    Total311344
    • ↵* Data are reported as number of scanners.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 58 (7)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 58, Issue 7
July 1, 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
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.
Qualification of National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers for Quantitative PET/CT Imaging in Clinical Trials
(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
Qualification of National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers for Quantitative PET/CT Imaging in Clinical Trials
Joshua S. Scheuermann, Janet S. Reddin, Adam Opanowski, Paul E. Kinahan, Barry A. Siegel, Lalitha K. Shankar, Joel S. Karp
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jul 2017, 58 (7) 1065-1071; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.116.186759

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Qualification of National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers for Quantitative PET/CT Imaging in Clinical Trials
Joshua S. Scheuermann, Janet S. Reddin, Adam Opanowski, Paul E. Kinahan, Barry A. Siegel, Lalitha K. Shankar, Joel S. Karp
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jul 2017, 58 (7) 1065-1071; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.116.186759
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Conceptualising centres of excellence: a scoping review of global evidence
  • Conceptualizing centers of excellence: A global evidence
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Oncology

  • Role of F18-FDG PET/CT in non-cutaneous melanomas.
  • The role of Lymphoscintigraphy in Breast Cancer Reccurence
  • Utility of bone scans in patients with RCC
Show more Oncology

Clinical

  • TauIQ: A Canonical Image Based Algorithm to Quantify Tau PET Scans
  • Dual PET Imaging in Bronchial Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: The NETPET Score as a Prognostic Biomarker
  • Addition of 131I-MIBG to PRRT (90Y-DOTATOC) for Personalized Treatment of Selected Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors
Show more Clinical

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • CQIE
  • PET Qualification
  • quantitative imaging
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire