Understanding the importance of quality control and quality assurance in preclinical PET/CT imaging
Tóm tắt
The fundamental principle of experimental design is to ensure efficiency and efficacy of the performed experiments. Therefore, it behoves the researcher to gain knowledge of the technological equipment to be used. This should include an understanding of the instrument quality control and assurance requirements to avoid inadequate or spurious results due to instrumentation bias whilst improving reproducibility. Here, the important role of preclinical positron emission tomography/computed tomography and the scanner's required quality control and assurance is presented along with the suggested guidelines for quality control and assurance. There are a multitude of factors impeding the continuity and reproducibility of preclinical research data within a single laboratory as well as across laboratories. A more robust experimental design incorporating validation or accreditation of the scanner performance can reduce inconsistencies. Moreover, the well-being and welfare of the laboratory animals being imaged is prime justification for refining experimental designs to include verification of instrumentation quality control and assurance. Suboptimal scanner performance is not consistent with the 3R principle (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) and potentially subjects animals to unnecessary harm. Thus, quality assurance and control should be of paramount interest to any scientist conducting animal studies. For this reason, through this work, we intend to raise the awareness of researchers using PET/CT regarding quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) guidelines and instil the importance of confirming that these are routinely followed. We introduce a basic understanding of the PET/CT scanner, present the purpose of QC/QA as well as provide evidence of imaging data biases caused by lack of QC/QA. This is shown through a review of the literature, QC/QA accepted standard protocols and our research. We also want to encourage researchers to have discussions with the PET/CT facilities manager and/or technicians to develop the optimal designed PET/CT experiment for obtaining their scientific objective. Additionally, this work provides an easy gateway to multiple resources not only for PET/CT knowledge but for guidelines and assistance in preclinical experimental design to enhance scientific integrity of the data and ensure animal welfare.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Kagadis GC, et al. In vivo small animal imaging: current status and future prospects. Med Phys. 2010;37(12):6421–42.
Yao R, Lecomte R, Crawford ES. Small-animal PET: what is it, and why do we need it? J Nucl Med Technol. 2012;40(3):157–65.
Cherry SR, Gambhir SS. Use of positron emission tomography in animal research. ILAR J. 2001;42(3):219–32.
Townsend DW, et al. PET/CT today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(Suppl 1):4S-14S.
Russell WMS, Burch RL. The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen; 1959.
Kilkenny C, et al. Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines. Br J Pharmacol. 2010;160(7):1577–9.
Festing MF. Reduction of animal use: experimental design and quality of experiments. Lab Anim. 1994;28(3):212–21.
Percie du Sert N, et al. Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(7): e3000411.
Medicine IO, et al. In: Graham R, et al., editors. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust, vol. 290. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
Eccles M, et al. North of England evidence based guidelines development project: methods of guideline development. BMJ. 1996;312(7033):760–2.
Brouwers MC, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010;182(18):E839–42.
Henderson VC, et al. Threats to validity in the design and conduct of preclinical efficacy studies: a systematic review of guidelines for in vivo animal experiments. PLoS Med. 2013;10(7): e1001489.
Stout D, et al. Guidance for methods descriptions used in preclinical imaging papers. Mol Imaging. 2013;12(7):1–15.
Vanhove C, et al. Accurate molecular imaging of small animals taking into account animal models, handling, anaesthesia, quality control and imaging system performance. EJNMMI Phys. 2015;2(1):31.
Mannheim JG, et al. Standardization of small animal imaging-current status and future prospects. Mol Imaging Biol. 2018;20(5):716–31.
Taylor CF, et al. Promoting coherent minimum reporting guidelines for biological and biomedical investigations: the MIBBI project. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26(8):889–96.
Han S, et al. A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(9): e0183591.
Zanzonico P. Routine quality control of clinical nuclear medicine instrumentation: a brief review. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(7):1114–31.
Osborne DR, et al. Guidance for efficient small animal imaging quality control. Mol Imaging Biol. 2017;19(4):485–98.
Mannheim JG, et al. Reproducibility and comparability of preclinical PET imaging data: a multicenter small-animal PET study. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(10):1483–91.
McDougald W, et al. Standardization of preclinical PET/CT imaging to improve quantitative accuracy, precision, and reproducibility: a multicenter study. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(3):461–8.
Busemann Sokole E, et al. Routine quality control recommendations for nuclear medicine instrumentation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(3):662–71.
Stout DB, et al. Small animal imaging center design: the facility at the UCLA Crump Institute for Molecular Imaging. Mol Imaging Biol. 2005;7(6):393–402.
Kuntner C, Stout D. Quantitative preclinical PET imaging: opportunities and challenges. Front Phys. 2014;2: 12.
Sena ES, et al. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(3): e1000344.
van der Worp HB, et al. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med. 2010;7(3): e1000245.
Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(9):712.
Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483(7391):531–3.
Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):11S-20S.
Boellaard R, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(2):328–54.
Boellaard R, et al. EARL procedure for assessing PET/CT system specific patient FDG activity preparations for quantitative FDG PET/CT studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;42:328–54.
EANM EARL website. http://earl.eanm.org.
Daube-Witherspoon ME, et al. PET performance measurements using the NEMA NU 2–2001 standard. J Nucl Med. 2002;43(10):1398–409.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Standards Publication NU-2-1994: performance measurements of positron emission tomography. 1994. Washington DC: National Electrical Manufacturers Association
National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 4-2008. Performance measurements of Small Animal Positron Emission Tomographs. 2008.
Hallen P, Schug D, Schulz V. Comments on the NEMA NU 4–2008 standard on performance measurement of small animal positron emission tomographs. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7(1):12.
de Jong HW, et al. A method to measure PET scatter fractions for daily quality control. Med Phys. 2009;36(10):4609–15.
Cacak R, Hendee W. Performance evaluation of a fourth-generation computed tomography (CT) scanner. Application of Optical Instrumentation in Medicine VII. Vol 0173. . SPIE; 1979.
Dillon C, et al. Computed tomography quality control manual. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2017.
Commission IE. Evaluation and routine testing in medical imaging departments–part 3–5: acceptance and constancy tests–imaging performance of computed tomography X-ray equipment. 2019.
Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography): part I. Description of system. Br J Radiol 1973. 1995;68(815):166–72.
Goldman LW. Principles of CT and CT technology. J Nucl Med Technol. 2007;35(3):115–28 (quiz 129–30).
Kalender WA. Computed tomography fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications/by Willi A. Kalender. 3rd ed. Germany: Publicis Pub.; 2011.
Gray JE, et al. Test pattern for video displays and hard-copy cameras. Radiology. 1985;154(2):519–27.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) part 14. Grayscale standard display function (PS 3.14-2004), 2004.
Camoni L, et al. Quality control of nuclear medicine instrumentation and protocol standardisation. EANM TECHNOLOGIST’S GUIDE. 2017.
American College of Radiology. CT accreditation phantom instructions. Reston: Va. American College of Radiology; 2013.
Vogt L, et al. Authorization of animal experiments is based on confidence rather than evidence of scientific rigor. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(12): e2000598.
Würbel H. More than 3Rs: the importance of scientific validity for harm-benefit analysis of animal research. Lab Anim. 2017;46(4):164–6.
Bailoo JD, Reichlin TS, Wurbel H. Refinement of experimental design and conduct in laboratory animal research. ILAR J. 2014;55(3):383–91.
Bronstad A, et al. Current concepts of harm-benefit analysis of animal experiments—report from the AALAS-FELASA Working Group on harm-benefit analysis—part 1. Lab Anim. 2016;50(1 Suppl):1–20.
Lockhart CM, et al. Quantifying and reducing the effect of calibration error on variability of PET/CT standardized uptake value measurements. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(2):218–24.
Geworski L, et al. Multicenter comparison of calibration and cross calibration of PET scanners. J Nucl Med. 2002;43(5):635–9.
Westerterp M, et al. Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34(3):392–404.
Zukić D, et al. Calibration software for quantitative PET/CT imaging using pocket phantoms. Tomography. 2018;4(3):148–58.
Velasquez LM, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(10):1646–54.
Fahey FH, et al. Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium. Med Phys. 2010;37(7):3660–6.
Muzi M, et al. Quantitative assessment of dynamic PET imaging data in cancer imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(9):1203–15.
Takahashi Y, et al. Variability of lesion detectability and standardized uptake value according to the acquisition procedure and reconstruction among five PET scanners. Ann Nucl Med. 2008;22(6):543–8.
Doot RK, et al. Design considerations for using PET as a response measure in single site and multicenter clinical trials. Acad Radiol. 2012;19(2):184–90.
Scheuermann JS, et al. Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: the American College of Radiology Imaging Network experience. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(7):1187–93.
Ioannidis JP, et al. Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(10): e1002264.
Scheuermann JS, et al. Qualification of National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers for quantitative PET/CT imaging in clinical trials. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(7):1065–71.
Carlson SK, et al. Small animal absorbed radiation dose from serial micro-computed tomography imaging. Mol Imaging Biol. 2007;9(2):78–82.
Willekens I, et al. Evaluation of the radiation dose in micro-CT with optimization of the scan protocol. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2010;5(4):201–7.
Foster WK, Ford NL. Investigating the effect of longitudinal micro-CT imaging on tumour growth in mice. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(2):315–26.
Kersemans V, et al. Micro-CT for anatomic referencing in PET and SPECT: radiation dose, biologic damage, and image quality. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(11):1827–33.
Baker D, et al. Two years later: journals are not yet enforcing the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting standards for pre-clinical animal studies. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(1): e1001756.