Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Commentary: An Eye on PET Quantification

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) is generally considered to be a quantitative imaging modality, allowing assessment of regional differences in radiotracer accumulation and the derivation of quantitative physiological information. Due to the increasing complexity of PET technology, the quantitative accuracy of PET images has to be continually reassessed if PET is to maintain its quantitative reputation. In this commentary, we discuss the results from a recent inter-scanner study in which the quantitative outcome measures from human studies were compared for three different radiotracers. The approach is a useful complement to standard phantom tests such as those prescribed by NEMA, but the resulting data are more difficult to interpret.

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

References

  1. 1.

    Phelps ME, Hoffman EJ, Mullani NA et al (1976) Design considerations for a positron emission transaxial tomograph (PETT III). IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 23:516–522

  2. 2.

    van Velden FH, Mansor SM, van Assema DME et al. (2014) Comparison of HRRT and HR+ scanners for quantitative (R)-[11C]verapamil, [11C]raclopride and [11C]flumazenil brain studies. Mol Imag Biol In press

  3. 3.

    de Jong HW, van Velden FH, Kloet RW et al (2007) Performance evaluation of the ECAT HRRT: an LSO-LYSO double layer high resolution, high sensitivity scanner. Phys Med Biol 52:1505–1526

  4. 4.

    Adam LE, Zaers J, Ostertag H et al (1997) Performance evaluation of the whole-body PET scanner ECAT EXACT HR+ following the IEC standard. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 44:1172–1179

  5. 5.

    Brix G, Zaers J, Adam LE et al (1997) Performance evaluation of a whole-body PET scanner using the NEMA protocol. J Nucl Med 38:1614–1623

  6. 6.

    Spinks TJ, Kindler H, Hogg D, Alaradi A, Alghazirr Z (2004) Comparison between segmented and nonsegmented attenuation correction on the HR+ tomograph. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Proc 5:2877–2881

  7. 7.

    Watson CC (2000) New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 3D PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 47:1587–1594

  8. 8.

    Watson CC (1996) A single scatter simulation technique for scatter correction in 3D PET. In: Grangeat P, Amans JL (eds) Three-Dimensional image reconstruction in radiation and nuclear medicine. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 255–268

  9. 9.

    Sibomana M, Keller SH, Stute S, Comtat C (2012) Benefits of 3D scatter correction for the HRRT—a large axial FOV PET scanner. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Med Imaging Conf 2012:2954–2957

  10. 10.

    Keller SH, Svarer C, Sibomana M (2013) Attenuation correction for the HRRT PET-scanner using transmission scatter correction and total variation regularization. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 32:1611–1621

  11. 11.

    Reader AJ, Tahaei MS, Rahmim A et al (2013) Multi-centre assessment of HRRT image uniformity via 68Ge and 18F cylindrical and anthropomorphic phantoms. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Med Imaging Conf 2013:1–8

  12. 12.

    Walker MD, Asselin MC, Julyan PJ et al (2011) Bias in iterative reconstruction of low-statistics PET data: benefits of a resolution model. Phys Med Biol 56:931–949

  13. 13.

    van Velden FH, Kloet RW, van Berckel BN, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R (2009) Accuracy of 3-dimensional reconstruction algorithms for the high-resolution research tomograph. J Nucl Med 50:72–80

  14. 14.

    Reader AJ, Tahaei MS, Bouhachi R et al (2013) Evaluation of the HRRT and the HR+ for the task of relative region analysis using a realistic head and brain phantom. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Med Imaging Conf 2013:1–7

  15. 15.

    van Velden FH, Kloet RW, de Jong HW et al (2006) Quantitative experimental comparison of HRRT versus HR+ PET brain studies. Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 5:3097–3099

  16. 16.

    Anton-Rodriguez JM, Sibomana M, Walker MD et al (2010) Investigation of motion induced errors in scatter correction for the HRRT brain scanner. Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 2010:2935–2940

  17. 17.

    Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA et al (2010) FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:181–200

  18. 18.

    Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ et al (2006) Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F- FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med 47:885–895

  19. 19.

    Scheuermann JS, Saffer JR, Karp JS et al (2009) Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: the American College of Radiology Imaging Network experience. J Nucl Med 50:1187–1193

  20. 20.

    Makris NE, Huisman MC, Kinahan PE et al (2013) 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 40:1507–1515

Download references

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Correspondence to Matthew D. Walker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walker, M.D., Sossi, V. Commentary: An Eye on PET Quantification. Mol Imaging Biol 17, 1–3 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-014-0791-7

Download citation

Key words

  • Positron emission tomography
  • Image quantification
  • HRRT
  • HR+