Method to determine the statistical technical variability of SUV metrics
Tóm tắt
The Standardized Uptake Value (SUV) Max, SUVMean, and SUVPeak are metrics used to quantify positron emission tomography (PET) images. In order to assess the significance of a change in these metrics for diagnostic purposes, it is relevant to know their variation. The sources of variation can be biological or technical. In this study, we present a method to determine the statistical technical variation of SUV in PET images. This method was tested on a NEMA quality phantom with spheres of various diameters with a full-length acquisition time of 150 s per bed position and foreground-to-background activity ratio of F18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) of 10:1. Our method divides the 150 s acquisition into subsets with statistically independent frames of shorter reconstruction length. SUVMax, Mean and Peak were calculated for each reconstructed image in a subset. The coefficient of variation of SUV within each subset has been used to estimate the expected coefficient of variation at 150 s reconstruction length. We report the largest coefficient of variation of the SUV metrics for the smallest sphere and the smallest variation for the largest sphere. The expected variation at 150 s reconstruction length does not exceed 6% for the smallest sphere and 2% for the largest sphere. With the presented method, we aim to determine the statistical technical variation of SUV. The method enables the evaluation of the effect of SUV metric choice (Max, Mean, Peak) and lesion size on the technical variation and, therefore, to evaluate its relevance on the total variation of the SUV value between clinical studies.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. 1956;123:309–14.
Hoekstra CJ, et al. Monitoring response to therapy in cancer using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27(6):731.
Lodge MA, et al. Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(7):1041–7.
Walh RL. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(1):122S-150S.
Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1):11S-20S.
Higdon R. Experimental design, variability. In: Dubitzky W, Wolkenhauer O, Cho KH, Yokota H (eds) Encyclopedia of systems biology; 2013. Springer, New York.
Doot RK, et al. Instrumentation factors affecting variance and bias of quantifying tracer uptake with PET/CT. Med Phys. 2010;37:6035–46.
Fahey FH, et al. Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium. Med Phys. 2010;37:3660–6.
Boellaard R, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54.
Kaalep A, et al. EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation - summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(3):412–22.
A.S. Keverling Buisman. Handboek radionucliden, BetaText v.o.f., 2015.
Joo HO. Practical PERCIST: a simplified guide to PET response criteria in solid tumors 1.0. Radiology. 2016;280(2):576–84.
Boellaard R. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1519–27.
Kinahan P, Fletcher JW. PET/CT standardized uptake values (SUVs) in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2010;31(6):496–505.
Abgral R, et al. Comparison of prognostic value of tumor SUL-peak and SUV-max on pretreatment FDG-PET/CT in patients with HNSCC. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(2):513.
Julyan PJ. SUVpeak: a new parameter for quantification of uptake in FDG PET. Nucl Med Com. 2004;25(4):407.
Lodge MA. Repeatability of SUV in oncologic 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(4):523–32.
Weber WA, et al. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1771–7.
Daouk J, Bailly P, Meyer ME. Quantization accuracy of short-duration respiratory-gated PET/CT acquisitions. Phys Med. 2015;31(8):1092–7.
Teoh EJ, et al. Phantom and clinical evaluation of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q. Clear on an LYSO PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(9):1447–52.
Shepp LA, Vardi Y. Maximum likelihood reconstruction for emission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imag. 1982;MI1:113–22.
Razifar P, Lubberink M, Schneider H, et al. Non-isotropic noise correlation in PET data reconstructed by FBP but not by OSEM demonstrated using auto-correlation function. BMC Med Imaging. 2005;5:3.
Qi J, Leahy RM. Iterative reconstruction techniques in emission computed tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(15):R541–78.
Tong S et al. Noise and signal properties in PSF-based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: an experimental evaluation.
Gong K, et al. Machine learning in PET: from photon detection to quantitative image reconstruction. Proc IEEE. 2020;108(1):51–68. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2019.2936809.
Mehranian A, et al. Image enhancement of whole-body oncology [18F]-FDG PET scans using deep neural networks to reduce noise. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(2):539–49.
Nahmias C, et al. Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1804–8.
Pierce LA, et al. A digital reference object to analyze calculation accuracy of PET standardized uptake value. Radiology. 2015;277:2.
Syahir M, et al. Impact of PET/CT system, reconstruction protocol, data analysis method, and repositioning on PET/CT precision: an experimental evaluation using an oncology and brain phantom. Med Phys. 2017;44(12):6413–24.
Kumar V, et al. Variance of standardized uptake values for FDG-PET/CT greater in clinical practice than under ideal study settings. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38(3):175–82.
Lodge MA, et al. A PET study of 18FDG uptake in soft tissue masses. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26:22–30.
Wang M, Guo N, Hu G, El Fakhri G, Zhang H, Li Q. A novel approach to assess the treatment response using Gaussian random field in PET. Med Phys. 2016;43(2):833–42.