Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Variability of lesion detectability and standardized uptake value according to the acquisition procedure and reconstruction among five PET scanners

  • Technical Note
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess differences in the semiquantitative values of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) uptake among different positron emission tomographic (PET) systems.

Methods

A phantom study was performed to compare standardized uptake value (SUV) in five PET scanners including a dedicated PET scanner and four PET/computed tomography (CT) scanners. Radioactivity simulating the SUV of 2.5 was filled in the hot spheres (8 mm, 11 mm, 14 mm, 18 mm, 22 mm, and 27 mm) that were set in the cylindrical phantom with the background SUV of 1.0. Data acquisition and reconstruction were performed according to routine and standardized conditions. The standardized condition was as follows: CT acquisition (120 kVp, 50 mA) and PET acquisition (2-min acquisition with a slice thickness of 2 mm); reconstruction was performed by ordered subsets expectation maximization + Fourier rebinning. Detectability of hot spheres and SUV was compared between routine condition and standardized condition with five PET scanners.

Results

On routine condition, two cameras could detect a 14-mm sphere clearly. On the other hand, the visualization of hot spheres by the standardized condition was remarkably variable. Semiquantitative evaluation revealed that a maximum of 45.7% error was recognized with the 27-mm sphere by the routine condition, although the standardized condition could reduce the error to 22.6%.

Conclusions

Detectability depends not only on the PET machine but also on the imaging protocol. The results indicate that SUV is variable with PET machines under routine conditions of data acquisition and reconstruction. Standardization of the reconditions can reduce variability and maximum difference in the SUV by half.

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

References

  1. Zhang H, Inoue T, Tian M, Alyafei S, Oriuchi N, Khan N, et al. A basic study on lesion detectability for hot spot imaging of positron emitters with dedicated PET and positron coincidence gamma camera. Ann Nucl Med 2001;15:301–306.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kubota K, Matsuzawa T, Ito M, Ito K, Fujiwara T, Abe Y, et al. Lung tumor imaging by position emission tomography using C-11 l-methionine. J Nucl Med 1985;26:37–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Strobel K, Rudy M, Treyer V, Veit-Haibach P, Burger C, Hany TF. Objective and subjective comparison of standard 2-D and fully 3-D reconstructed data on a PET/CT system. Nucl Med Commun 2007;28:555–559.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van Dalen JA, Visser EP, Vogel WV, Corstens FHM, Oyen WJG. Impact of Ge-68/Ga-68-based versus CT-based attenuation correction on PET. Med Phys 2007;34:889–897.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, Hoekstra O, Paans A, Visser E, et al. Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardized uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:392–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cherry SR, Dahlbom M, Hoffman EJ. 3D PET using a conventional multislice tomograph without septa. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1991;15:655–668.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mawlawi O, Podoloff DA, Kohlmyer S, Williams JJ, Stearns CW, Culp RF, et al. Performance characteristics of a newly developed PET/CT scanner using NEMA standards in 2D and 3D modes. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1734–1742.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Defrise M, Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Michel C, Sibomana M, Newport DF. Exact and approximate rebinning algorithms for 3-D PET data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1997;16:145–158.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Comtat C, Kinahan PE, Defrise M, Michel C, Townsend DW. Fast reconstruction of 3D PET data with accurate statistical modeling. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1998;45:1083–1089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Browne J, De Pierro AR. A row-action alternative to the EM algorithm for maximizing likelihoods in emission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1996;15:687–699.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu X, Comtat C, Michel C, Kinahan P, Defrise M, Townsend D. Comparison of 3-D reconstruction with 3D-OSEM and with FORE + OSEM for PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2001;20:804–814.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fujiwara T, Watanuki S, Yamamoto S, Miyake M, Seo S, Itoh M, et al. Performance evaluation of a large axial field-of-view PET scanner: SET-2400. Ann Nucl Med 1997;11:307–313.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Inoue T, Oriuchi N, Kunio M, Tomiyoshi K, Tomaru Y, Aoyagi K, et al. Accuracy of standardized uptake value measured by simultaneous emission and transmission scanning in PET oncology. Nucl Med Commun 1999;20:849–857.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Townsend DW, Beyer T, Blodgett TM. PET/CT scanners: a hardware approach to image fusion. Semin Nucl Med 2003;33:193–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Burger C, Goerres G, Schoenes S, Buck A, Lonn AHR, von Schulthess GK. PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experiment evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:922–927.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Accorsi R, Adam LE, Werner ME, Karp JS. Optimization of a fully 3D single scatter simulation algorithm for 3D PET. Phys Med Biol 2004;49:2577–2598.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Calvo R, Marti-Client JM, Richer JA, Penuelas I, Crespo-Jara A, Villar LM, et al. Three-dimensional clinical PET in lung cancer: validation and practical strategies. J Nucl Med 2000;41:439–448.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nakamoto Y, Osman M, Cohade C, Marshall LT, Links JM, Kohlmyer S, et al. PET/CT: comparison of quantitative tracer uptake between germanium and CT transmission attenuation-corrected images. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1137–1143.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Beaulieu S, Kinahan P, Tseng J, Dunnwald LK, Schubert EK, Pham P, et al. SUV varies with time after injection in 18F-FDG PET of breast cancer: characterization and method to adjust for time differences. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1044–1050.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wong CYO, Thie J, Parling-Lyuch KJ, Zakalik D, Margolis JH, Gaskill M, et al. Glucose-normalized standardized uptake value from 18F-FDG PET in classifying lymphomas. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1659–1663.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1519–1527.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake values, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1431–1434.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine Technology, Gunma Prefectural College of Health Sciences, 323-1 Kamioki-cho, Maebashi, 371-0052, Japan

    Yasuyuki Takahashi

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Japan

    Noboru Oriuchi & Keigo Endo

  3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Gunma University Hospital, Maebashi, Japan

    Hidenori Otake

  4. Department of Medical Engineering, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan

    Kenya Murase

Authors
  1. Yasuyuki Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noboru Oriuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hidenori Otake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Keigo Endo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kenya Murase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yasuyuki Takahashi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Takahashi, Y., Oriuchi, N., Otake, H. et al. Variability of lesion detectability and standardized uptake value according to the acquisition procedure and reconstruction among five PET scanners. Ann Nucl Med 22, 543–548 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-008-0152-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-008-0152-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation