Skip to main content

Main menu

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

Variations in PET/CT Methodology for Oncologic Imaging at U.S. Academic Medical Centers: An Imaging Response Assessment Team Survey

Michael M. Graham, Ramsey D. Badawi and Richard L. Wahl
Journal of Nuclear Medicine January 2011, jnumed.109.074104; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.109.074104
Michael M. Graham
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ramsey D. Badawi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard L. Wahl
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

In 2005, 8 Imaging Response Assessment Teams (IRATs) were funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as supplemental grants to existing NCI Cancer Centers. After discussion among the IRATs regarding the need for increased standardization of clinical and research PET/CT methodology, it became apparent that data acquisition and processing approaches differ considerably among centers. To determine the variability in detail, a survey of IRAT sites and IRAT affiliates was performed. Methods: A 34-question instrument evaluating patient preparation, scanner type, performance approach, display, and analysis was developed. Fifteen institutions, including the 8 original IRATs and 7 institutions that had developed affiliate IRATs, were surveyed. Results: The major areas of variation were 18F-FDG dose (259–740 MBq [7–20 mCi]) uptake time (45–90 min), sedation (never to frequently), handling of diabetic patients, imaging time (2–7 min/bed position), performance of diagnostic CT scans as a part of PET/CT, type of acquisition (2-dimensional vs. 3-dimensional), CT technique, duration of fasting (4 or 6 h), and (varying widely) acquisition, processing, display, and PACS software—with 4 sites stating that poor-quality images appear on PACS. Conclusion: There is considerable variability in the way PET/CT scans are performed at academic institutions that are part of the IRAT network. This variability likely makes it difficult to quantitatively compare studies performed at different centers. These data suggest that additional standardization in methodology will be required so that PET/CT studies, especially those performed quantitatively, are more comparable across sites.

  • oncology
  • PET/CT
  • quality assurance
  • IRAT
  • PET-CT
  • standardization
  • variation
Next
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 64 (3)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 64, Issue 3
March 1, 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
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.
Variations in PET/CT Methodology for Oncologic Imaging at U.S. Academic Medical Centers: An Imaging Response Assessment Team Survey
(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
Variations in PET/CT Methodology for Oncologic Imaging at U.S. Academic Medical Centers: An Imaging Response Assessment Team Survey
Michael M. Graham, Ramsey D. Badawi, Richard L. Wahl
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jan 2011, jnumed.109.074104; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.074104

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Variations in PET/CT Methodology for Oncologic Imaging at U.S. Academic Medical Centers: An Imaging Response Assessment Team Survey
Michael M. Graham, Ramsey D. Badawi, Richard L. Wahl
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jan 2011, jnumed.109.074104; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.074104
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Establishment of National DRL for CT in Hybrid Imaging Studies (The Second Phase of the National NM CT (PET) Dose Audit for Kuwait Population -2019)
  • SNMMI Procedure Standard/EANM Practice Guideline on Pediatric 18F-FDG PET/CT for Oncology 1.0
  • Variability and Repeatability of Quantitative Uptake Metrics in 18F-FDG PET/CT of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Impact of Segmentation Method, Uptake Interval, and Reconstruction Protocol
  • Use of a Qualification Phantom for PET Brain Imaging in a Multicenter Consortium: A Collaboration Between the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium and the SNMMI Clinical Trials Network
  • Diagnostic Reference Levels of CT Radiation Dose in Whole-Body PET/CT
  • Combined 18F-Fluoride and 18F-FDG PET/CT Scanning for Evaluation of Malignancy: Results of an International Multicenter Trial
  • Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT: Referring Physicians' Point of View
  • Need for Standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for Treatment Response Assessments
  • Contribution of Imaging to Cancer Care Costs
  • Introduction
  • Standardization of Quantitative Imaging: The Time Is Right, and 18F-FDG PET/CT Is a Good Place to Start
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire