SUV variability in EARL-accredited conventional and digital PET.
EJNMMI Res
; 9(1): 106, 2019 Dec 10.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-31823097
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
A high SUV-reproducibility is crucial when different PET scanners are in use. We evaluated the SUV variability in whole-body FDG-PET scans of patients with suspected or proven cancer using an EARL-accredited conventional and digital PET scanner. In a head-to-head comparison we studied images of 50 patients acquired on a conventional scanner (cPET, Ingenuity TF PET/CT, Philips) and compared them with images acquired on a digital scanner (dPET, Vereos PET/CT, Philips). The PET scanning order was randomised and EARL-compatible reconstructions were applied. We measured SUVmean, SUVpeak, SUVmax and lesion diameter in up to 5 FDG-positive lesions per patient. The relative difference ΔSUV between cPET and dPET was calculated for each SUV-parameter. Furthermore, we calculated repeatability coefficients, reflecting the 95% confidence interval of ΔSUV.RESULTS:
We included 128 lesions with an average size of 19 ± 14 mm. Average ΔSUVs were 6-8% with dPET values being higher for all three SUV-parameters (p < 0.001). ΔSUVmax was significantly higher than ΔSUVmean (8% vs. 6%, p = 0.002) and than ΔSUVpeak (8% vs. 7%, p = 0.03). Repeatability coefficients across individual lesions were 27% (ΔSUVmean and ΔSUVpeak) and 33% (ΔSUVmax) (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONS:
With EARL-accredited conventional and digital PET, we found a limited SUV variability with average differences up to 8%. Furthermore, only a limited number of lesions showed a SUV difference of more than 30%. These findings indicate that EARL standardisation works. TRIAL REGISTRATION This prospective study was registered on the 31th of October 2017 at ClinicalTrials.cov. URL https//clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03457506?id=03457506&rank=1.
Texto completo:
1
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Tipo de estudo:
Clinical_trials
/
Observational_studies
Idioma:
En
Ano de publicação:
2019
Tipo de documento:
Article