Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 1/2016

01.01.2016 | Editorial Commentary

The engagement of FDG PET/CT image quality and harmonized quantification: from competitive to complementary

verfasst von: Ronald Boellaard

Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The use of 18F-FDG PET/CT as a quantitative imaging biomarker requires standardization and harmonization of imaging procedures and PET/CT system performance to obtain repeatable and reproducible quantitative data. However, a PET/CT system optimized to meet international quantitative standards is not necessarily optimized for use as a diagnostic tool (i.e. for lesion detectability). Several solutions have been proposed and validated, but until recently none of them had been implemented commercially. Vendor-provided solutions allowing the use of PET/CT both as a diagnostic tool and as a quantitative imaging biomarker are therefore greatly needed and would be highly appreciated. In this invited perspective one such solution is highlighted.
Literatur
1.
Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(6):983–95.PubMed
2.
3.
Geus-Oei LF, van der Heijden HF, Corstens FH, Oyen WJ. Predictive and prognostic value of FDG-PET in nonsmall-cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Cancer. 2007;110(8):1654–64.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Kobe C, Scheffler M, Holstein A, et al. Predictive value of early and late residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 18F-fluorothymidine uptake using different SUV measurements in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(7):1117–27.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Bengtsson T, Hicks RJ, Peterson A, Port RE. 18F-FDG PET as a surrogate biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib: newly identified lesions are more informative than standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(4):530–7.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Doot RK, McDonald ES, Mankoff DA. Role of PET quantitation in the monitoring of cancer response to treatment: review of approaches and human clinical trials. Clin Transl Imaging. 2014;2(4):295–303.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
7.
Gebhart G, Gamez C, Holmes E, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant lapatinib, trastuzumab, and their combination in HER2-positive breast cancer: results from Neo-ALTTO. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(11):1862–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69(3):89-95.CrossRef
9.
Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:11S–20.
10.
Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35(13):1773–82.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S–50S.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
12.
Weber WA, Gatsonis CA, Mozley PD, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET/CT in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: prospective assessment in 2 multicenter trials. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(8):1137–43.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Velasquez LM, Boellaard R, Kollia G, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(10):1646–54.CrossRefPubMed
14.
de Langen AJ, Vincent A, Velasquez LM, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG uptake measurements in tumors: a metaanalysis. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(5):701–8.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Boellaard R. Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med. 2011;52 Suppl 2:93S–100.
16.
17.
Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(1):181–200.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
18.
Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(2):328–54.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
19.
Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(5):885–95.PubMed
20.
Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of F-18-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(6):1059–66.PubMed
21.
22.
Sunderland JJ, Christian PE. Quantitative PET/CT scanner performance characterization based upon the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Clinical Trials Network oncology clinical simulator phantom. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(1):145–52.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Makris NE, Huisman MC, Kinahan PE, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R. Evaluation of strategies towards harmonization of FDG PET/CT studies in multicentre trials: comparison of scanner validation phantoms and data analysis procedures. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(10):1507–15.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Graham MM, Wahl RL, Hoffman JM, et al. Summary of the UPICT Protocol for 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging in Oncology Clinical Trials. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(6):955–61.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Klausen TL, Keller SH, Olesen OV, Aznar M, Andersen FL. Innovations in PET/CT. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;56(3):268–79.
27.
28.
Andersen FL, Klausen TL, Loft A, Beyer T, Holm S. Clinical evaluation of PET image reconstruction using a spatial resolution model. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(5):862–9.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Rausch I, Bergmann H, Geist B, et al. Variation of system performance, quality control standards and adherence to international FDG-PET/CT imaging guidelines. A national survey of PET/CT operations in Austria. Nuklearmedizin. 2014;53(6):242–8.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Quak E, et al. Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(7):985–96.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
33.
Niederkohr RD, Greenspan BS, Prior JO, et al. Reporting guidance for oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(5):756–61.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
The engagement of FDG PET/CT image quality and harmonized quantification: from competitive to complementary
verfasst von
Ronald Boellaard
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2016
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3182-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 1/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Original Article

Utility of the combination of DAT SPECT and MIBG myocardial scintigraphy in differentiating dementia with Lewy bodies from Alzheimer’s disease

Erratum

Erratum to: Difficulties in deciding whether to ablate patients with putatively “low–intermediate-risk” differentiated thyroid carcinoma: do guidelines mainly apply in the centres that produce them? Results of a retrospective, two-centre quality assurance study

Editorial Commentary

Of standard of reference and accuracy: the problem of truth in imaging

Original Article

Dosimetry of bone metastases in targeted radionuclide therapy with alpha-emitting 223Ra-dichloride

Original Article

Factors affecting 223Ra therapy: clinical experience after 532 cycles from a single institution

Erratum

Erratum to: Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis