Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Editorial Commentary
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  1. Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(6):983–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hicks RJ. The role of PET in monitoring therapy. Cancer Imaging. 2005;5:51–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69(3):89-95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. American College of Radiology. ACR-SPR practice parameter for performing FDG-PET/CT in oncology. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2014. http://www.acr.org/~/media/71B746780F934F6D8A1BA5CCA5167EDB.pdf. 2014.

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. EANM Research Ltd. New EANM FDG PET/CT accreditation specifications for SUV recovery coefficients. Vienna: EANM Research Ltd; 2011. http://earl.eanm.org/cms/website.php?id=/en/projects/fdg_pet_ct_accreditation/accreditation_specifications.htm

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Radiological Society of North America. FDG-PET/CT Technical Committee. FDG-PET/CT as an imaging biomarker measuring response to cancer therapy. Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance. Version 1.05. Publicly reviewed version. QIBA, 11 December 2013. https://www.rsna.org/uploadedFiles/RSNA/Content/Science_and_Education/QIBA/QIBA_FDG-PET_Profile_v105_Publicly_Reviewed_Version_FINAL_11Dec2013.pdf

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lewellen TK. Recent developments in PET detector technology. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(17):R287–317.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kelly MD, Declerck JM. SUVref: reducing reconstruction-dependent variation in PET SUV. EJNMMI Res. 2011;1(1):16.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Quak E, Leroux P-Y, Hofman MS, et al. Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015. doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Ronald Boellaard

Authors
  1. Ronald Boellaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald Boellaard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boellaard, R. The engagement of FDG PET/CT image quality and harmonized quantification: from competitive to complementary. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43, 1–4 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3182-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3182-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation