Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Treatment response assessment in [ 18 F]FDG-PET/CT oncology scans: Impact of count statistics variation and reconstruction protocol.

Physica Medica : PM 2019 January
PURPOSE: To investigate influences of reconstruction algorithms and count statistics variation on quantification and treatment response assessment in cancer patients, by using a large field of view-FOV scanner.

METHODS: 54 cancer patients underwent PET/CT scan: 1) at baseline: 1.5 min/FOV, reconstructed by ordered-subset expectation maximization + point-spread-function-OSEM-PSF and bayesian penalised-likelihood-BPL algorithm 2) at restaging: 2 min/FOV, reconstructed also at 1.5 and 1 min/FOV, using OSEM-PSF and BPL. SUL (lean-body mass SUV) peak and max were measured for each target-lesion (n = 59). Differences in quantification obtained from datasets with different reconstruction algorithms and different time/FOV were evaluated. For any pair of PET datasets, metabolic response was assessed by using SULpeak, with a threshold of 30% in variation considered as significant.

RESULTS: Both at baseline and restaging, SULpeak and max values were higher in BPL reconstructions than in OSEM-PSF (p < 0.0001). SULpeak at different time/FOV reconstructions showed no statistically significant differences both with OSEM-PSF and BPL; SULmax depended on acquisition time (p < 0.05). In 56/59 lesions (95%) therapy response was concordant regardless count statistics variation and reconstruction algorithm; 2/59 (3%) showed different responses according to count statistics, both for OSEM-PSF and BPL; in 1/59 lesion (2%) response was different depending on reconstruction algorithm used.

CONCLUSIONS: BPL provided higher SULpeak and max than OSEM-PSF. With a large FOV/high sensitivity scanner, variation of time/FOV in restaging PET scans gave stable and reproducible results in terms of SULpeak, both for OSEM-PSF and BPL. Thus, metabolic response defined by SULpeak variation proved to be quite independent from count statistics.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app