Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Image quality and variability for routine diagnostic FDG-PET scans in a Japanese community hospital: current status and possibility of improvement

  • Technical Note
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In Japan, commercially delivered FDG is manufactured in three batches per day at fixed constant activity and distributed in vials. Consequently, the amount of activity administered to the patient varies depending on the timing of injection. We evaluated a method for adjusting the scan time according to the body mass index (BMI) to obtain equivalent image quality for every patient.

Methods

We examined a total of 301 routine clinical oncology PET scans using commercially delivered FDG. The relation between the injected activity and the noise equivalent count per scan length (NECpatient) was evaluated as a marker of image quality; its association with BMI was also examined.

Results

The injected activity and NECpatient exhibited large variations (230.4 ± 55.8 MBq and 19.9 ± 2.9 Mcounts/m). There was a weak correlation between the injected activity and NECpatient (r ~ 0.3) for thin patients (BMI < 21 kg/m2), but no correlation for patients with higher BMIs. However, a significant correlation was found between BMI and NECpatient (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

In a community hospital using commercially delivered FDG, it is possible to reduce the variability of the NECpatient and obtain uniform image quality by changing the scan time as a function of patient BMI, even with uncontrollable injected activity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Reske SN, Kotzerke J. FDG-PET for clinical use. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2001;28:1707–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. de Groot EH, Post N, Boellaard R, Wagenaar NR, Willemsen AT, van Dalen JA. Optimized dose regimen for whole-body FDG-PET imaging. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3:63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Watson CC, Casey ME, Bendriem B, Carney JP, Townsend DW, Eberl S, et al. Optimizing injected dose in clinical PET by accurately modeling the counting-rate response functions specific to individual patient scans. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1825–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nagaki A, Onoguchi M, Matsutomo N. Patient weight-based acquisition protocols to optimize (18)F-FDG PET/CT image quality. J Nucl Med Technol. 2011;39:72–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fukukita H, Senda M, Terauchi T, Suzuki K, Daisaki H, Matsumoto K, et al. Japanese guideline for the oncology FDG-PET/CT data acquisition protocol: synopsis of Version 1.0. Ann Nucl Med. 2010;24:325–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goerres GW, Burger C, Kamel E, Seifert B, Kaim AH, Buck A, et al. Respiration-induced attenuation artifact at PET/CT: technical considerations. Radiology. 2003;226:906–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Iatrou M, Ross SG, Manjeshwar RM, Stearns CW. A fully 3D iterative image reconstruction algorithm incorporating data corrections. In: IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2004, Vol. 4, pp. 2493–97.

  9. De Ponti E, Morzenti S, Guerra L, Pasquali C, Arosio M, Bettinardi V, et al. Performance measurements for the PET/CT Discovery-600 using NEMA NU 2-2007 standards. Med Phys. 2011;38:968–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Masuda Y, Kondo C, Matsuo Y, Uetani M, Kusakabe K. Comparison of imaging protocols for 18F-FDG PET/CT in overweight patients: optimizing scan duration versus administered dose. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:844–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We have no grants. The study was approved by the ethics committee of Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital and Nagoya University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-20 Daiko-Minami, Higashi-ku, Nagoya City, Aichi, 461-8673, Japan

    Keiji Shimizu & Seiichi Yamamoto

  2. Department of Radiological Technology, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, 2-1-1, Minatojima-Minamimachi, Chuo-Ku, Kobe-City, Hyogo, 650-0047, Japan

    Keiji Shimizu & Megumu Hino

  3. Kyoto College of Medical Science, 1-3, Oyama-Higashimachi-Imakita, Sonobe-Cho, Nantan-City, Kyoto, 622-0041, Japan

    Keiichi Matsumoto

  4. Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation, 2-2, Minatojima Minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Hyogo, 650-0047, Japan

    Michio Senda

Authors
  1. Keiji Shimizu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seiichi Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keiichi Matsumoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Megumu Hino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michio Senda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keiji Shimizu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The study was approved by the ethics committee of Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shimizu, K., Yamamoto, S., Matsumoto, K. et al. Image quality and variability for routine diagnostic FDG-PET scans in a Japanese community hospital: current status and possibility of improvement. Jpn J Radiol 34, 529–535 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-016-0547-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-016-0547-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation