Impact of image reconstruction methods on quantitative accuracy and variability of FDG-PET volumetric and textural measures in solid tumors.
Adult
Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
/ pharmacology
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Male
Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Phantoms, Imaging
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
Radiopharmaceuticals
/ pharmacology
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Tumor Burden
Image reconstruction
PET-CT
Radiation oncology
Tumor burden
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
17
07
2018
accepted:
11
09
2018
revised:
20
08
2018
pubmed:
4
10
2018
medline:
14
5
2019
entrez:
4
10
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aims to assess the impact of different image reconstruction methods on PET/CT quantitative volumetric and textural parameters and the inter-reconstruction variability of these measurements. A total of 25 oncology patients with 65 lesions (between 2017 and 2018) and a phantom with signal-to-background ratios (SBR) of 2 and 4 were included. All images were retrospectively reconstructed using OSEM, PSF only, TOF only, and TOFPSF with 3-, 5-, and 6.4-mm Gaussian filters. The metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were measured. The relative percent error (ΔMTV and ΔTLG) with respect to true values, volume recovery coefficients, and Dice similarity coefficient, as well as inter-reconstruction variabilities were quantified and assessed. In clinical scans, textural features (coefficient of variation, skewness, and kurtosis) were determined. Among reconstruction methods, mean ΔMTV differed by -163.5 ± 14.1% to 6.3 ± 6.2% at SBR2 and -42.7 ± 36.7% to 8.6 ± 3.1 at SBR4. Dice similarity coefficient significantly increased by increasing SBR from 2 to 4, ranging from 25.7 to 83.4% between reconstruction methods. Mean ΔTLG was -12.0 ± 1.7 for diameters > 17 mm and -17.8 ± 7.8 for diameters ≤ 17 mm at SBR4. It was -31.7 ± 4.3 for diameters > 17 mm and -14.2 ± 5.8 for diameters ≤ 17 mm at SBR2. Textural features were prone to variations by reconstruction methods (p < 0.05). Inter-reconstruction variability was significantly affected by the target size, SBR, and cut-off threshold value. In small tumors, inter-reconstruction variability was noteworthy, and quantitative parameters were strongly affected. TOFPSF reconstruction with small filter size produced greater improvements in performance and accuracy in quantitative PET/CT imaging. • Quantitative volumetric PET evaluation is critical for the analysis of tumors. • However, volumetric and textural evaluation is prone to important variations according to different image reconstruction settings. • TOFPSF reconstruction with small filter size improves quantitative analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30280249
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5754-y
pii: 10.1007/s00330-018-5754-y
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2146-2156Subventions
Organisme : Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services
ID : 28212
Références
J Nucl Med. 2008 Mar;49(3):462-70
pubmed: 18287269
Cancer Imaging. 2010 Jul 06;10:137-43
pubmed: 20605762
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Mar;41(3):452-61
pubmed: 24081448
Phys Med Biol. 2013 Oct 7;58(19):6945-68
pubmed: 24029682
Oral Oncol. 2013 Mar;49(3):261-8
pubmed: 23036774
Acad Radiol. 2004 Feb;11(2):178-89
pubmed: 14974593
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Dec;38(12):2136-44
pubmed: 21858528
Ann Oncol. 2013 Jan;24(1):208-14
pubmed: 23002280
Lancet Oncol. 2005 Feb;6(2):112-7
pubmed: 15683820
J Nucl Med. 2012 May;53(5):709-15
pubmed: 22492732
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Aug;203(2):W139-45
pubmed: 25055289
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Aug;37(9):1679-87
pubmed: 20422184
Radiother Oncol. 2010 Sep;96(3):302-7
pubmed: 20708286
Nucl Med Commun. 2011 Nov;32(11):989-96
pubmed: 21862944
J Nucl Med. 2009 May;50 Suppl 1:122S-50S
pubmed: 19403881
Korean J Radiol. 2012 Nov-Dec;13(6):752-9
pubmed: 23118574
Nucl Med Commun. 2016 Mar;37(3):231-8
pubmed: 26575392
J Nucl Med. 2014 Jun;55(6):891-7
pubmed: 24752672
J Nucl Med. 2012 Nov;53(11):1716-22
pubmed: 22952340
Med Phys. 2013 Jun;40(6):064301
pubmed: 23718620
Nucl Med Commun. 2016 Mar;37(3):288-96
pubmed: 26650959
Med Phys. 2013 Dec;40(12):120601
pubmed: 24320486
Phys Med Biol. 2013 Mar 7;58(5):1465-78
pubmed: 23403399
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Apr;41(4):659-67
pubmed: 24196922
Radiother Oncol. 2010 Sep;96(3):317-24
pubmed: 20673689
Phys Med Biol. 2012 Nov 7;57(21):R119-59
pubmed: 23073343
Med Phys. 2011 Oct;38(10):5394-411
pubmed: 21992359
J Nucl Med. 2014 Jun;55(6):884-90
pubmed: 24752671
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Apr;202(4):851-8
pubmed: 24660716
J Nucl Med. 2007 Jun;48(6):932-45
pubmed: 17504879
Phys Med Biol. 2010 Jul 21;55(14):4131-51
pubmed: 20601780
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Sep;207(3):641-7
pubmed: 27341273
Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Sep 15;15(18):5861-8
pubmed: 19737951
J Nucl Med. 2009 Aug;50(8):1315-23
pubmed: 19617317
PET Clin. 2007 Apr;2(2):235-49
pubmed: 27157875