Bayesian penalized likelihood PET reconstruction impact on quantitative metrics in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Journal
Medicine
ISSN: 1536-5964
Titre abrégé: Medicine (Baltimore)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985248R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Feb 2023
10 Feb 2023
Historique:
entrez:
23
2
2023
pubmed:
24
2
2023
medline:
3
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Evaluate the quantitative, subjective (Deauville score [DS]) and reader agreement differences between standard ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) and Bayesian penalized likelihood (BPL) positron emission tomography (PET) reconstruction methods. A retrospective review of 104 F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography (CT) exams among 52 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. An unblinded radiologist moderator reviewed both BPL and OSEM PET/CT exams. Four blinded radiologists then reviewed the annotated cases to provide a visual DS for each annotated lesion. Significant (P < .001) differences in BPL and OSEM PET methods were identified with greater standard uptake value (SUV) maximum and SUV mean for BPL. The DS was altered in 25% of cases when BPL and OSEM were reviewed by the same radiologist. Interobserver DS agreement was higher for OSEM (>1 cm lesion = 0.89 and ≤1 cm lesion = 0.84) compared to BPL (>1 cm lesion = 0.85 and ≤1 cm lesion = 0.81). Among the 4 readers, average intraobserver visual DS agreement between OSEM and BPL was 0.67 for lesions >1cm and 0.4 for lesions ≤1 cm. F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma reconstructed with BPL has higher SUV values, altered DSs and reader agreement when compared to OSEM. This report finds volumetric PET measurements such as metabolic tumor volume to be similar between BPL and OSEM PET reconstructions. Efforts such as adoption of European Association Research Ltd accreditation should be made to harmonize PET data with an aim at balancing the need for harmonization and sensitivity for lesion detection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36820562
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032665
pii: 00005792-202302100-00032
pmc: PMC9907923
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e32665Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Mayo Clinic receives funding from Novartis, Pfizer, MedTrace, Clarity, Clovis, and ViewPoint for research conducted by GBJ. Consulting for Pfizer, Novartis, Curium, Blue Earth, and AstraZeneca are conducted by GBJ. Companies founded by GBJ include Carver Scientific, Nucleus (working title) and The Green Clinic. Mayo Clinic and GBJ hold patents pending on PSMA-targeted and other radionuclide theranostic technologies with know-how agreements with ViewPoint and MedTrace. The coauthors otherwise have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose. The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Ross S. Q.Clear White Paper. General Electric Healthcare website. 2014. Available at: https://wwwgehealthcarecouk/-/jssmedia/widen/gehealthcarecom/migrated/ocuments-us-global-products-pet-ct-whitepaper-q-clear-ge-healthcare-white-paper_qclear_pdfpdf?rev=2ffc6f8f38a542ab90c75d37f4ac7183&hash=076FF90CE4A7F9D77E2C544FFAE695DA . Updated July 25, 2019 [Access date November 5, 2021].
Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Macpherson RE, 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;56:1447–52.
Bettinardi V, Presotto L, Rapisarda E, et al. Physical performance of the new hybrid PETCT Discovery-690. Med Phys. 2011;38:5394–411.
Alessio AM, Stearns CW, Tong S, et al. Application and evaluation of a measured spatially variant system model for PET image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010;29:938–49.
van der Vos CS, Koopman D, Rijnsdorp S, et al. Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:4–16.
Miwa K, Wagatsuma K, Nemoto R, et al. Detection of sub-centimeter lesions using digital TOF-PET/CT system combined with Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm. Ann Nucl Med. 2020;34:762–71.
Texte E, Gouel P, Thureau S, et al. Impact of the Bayesian penalized likelihood algorithm (Q.Clear(R)) in comparison with the OSEM reconstruction on low contrast PET hypoxic images. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7:28.
Rogasch JM, Suleiman S, Hofheinz F, et al. Reconstructed spatial resolution and contrast recovery with Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction (Q.Clear) for FDG-PET compared to time-of-flight (TOF) with point spread function (PSF). EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7:2.
Chilcott AK, Bradley KM, McGowan DR. Effect of a Bayesian penalized likelihood PET reconstruction compared with ordered subset expectation maximization on clinical image quality over a wide range of patient weights. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210:153–7.
Lindstrom E, Sundin A, Trampal C, et al. Evaluation of penalized-likelihood estimation reconstruction on a digital time-of-flight PET/CT scanner for (18)F-FDG whole-body examinations. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1152–8.
Vallot D, Caselles O, Chaltiel L, et al. A clinical evaluation of the impact of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm on PET FDG metrics. Nucl Med Commun. 2017;38:979–84.
Sampaio Vieira T, Borges Faria D, Azevedo Silva F, et al. The impact of a Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm on the evaluation of indeterminate pulmonary nodules by dual-time point 18F-FDG PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42:e352–4.
Sampaio Vieira T, Borges Faria D, Azevedo Silva F, et al. The impact of a Bayesian penalized-likelihood reconstruction algorithm on delayed-time-point Ga-68-PSMA PET for improved recurrent prostate cancer detection. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1461–2.
Kurita Y, Ichikawa Y, Nakanishi T, et al. The value of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction for improving lesion conspicuity of malignant lung tumors on (18)F-FDG PET/CT: comparison with ordered subset expectation maximization reconstruction incorporating time-of-flight model and point spread function correction. Ann Nucl Med. 2020;34:272–9.
Howard BA, Morgan R, Thorpe MP, et al. Comparison of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction versus OS-EM for characterization of small pulmonary nodules in oncologic PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2017;31:623–8.
Quak E, Hovhannisyan N, Lasnon C, et al. The importance of harmonizing interim positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: focus on the Deauville criteria. Haematologica. 2014;99:e84–5.
Kuhnert G, Boellaard R, Sterzer S, et al. Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:249–58.
Matti A, Lima GM, Pettinato C, et al. How do the more recent reconstruction algorithms affect the interpretation criteria of PET/CT images? Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;53:216–22.
Messerli M, Stolzmann P, Egger-Sigg M, et al. Impact of a Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm on image quality in novel digital PET/CT: clinical implications for the assessment of lung tumors. EJNMMI Phys. 2018;5:27.
Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Bradley KM, et al. Novel penalised likelihood reconstruction of PET in the assessment of histologically verified small pulmonary nodules. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:576–84.
Parvizi N, Franklin JM, McGowan DR, et al. Does a novel penalized likelihood reconstruction of 18F-FDG PET-CT improve signal-to-background in colorectal liver metastases? Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:1873–8.
Barrington SF, Sulkin T, Forbes A, et al. All that glitters is not gold - new reconstruction methods using Deauville criteria for patient reporting. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:316–7.
Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Schuster DM, et al. Bayesian penalised likelihood reconstruction (Q.Clear) of (18)F-fluciclovine PET for imaging of recurrent prostate cancer: semi-quantitative and clinical evaluation. Br J Radiol. 2018;91:20170727.
Toriihara A, Nobashi T, Baratto L, et al. Comparison of 3 interpretation criteria for (68)Ga-PSMA11 PET based on inter- and intrareader agreement. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:533–9.
Gultekin A, Yaylali O, Sengoz T, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement for the interpretation of 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen-I&T positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Nucl Med Commun. 2019;40:1250–5.
Zacho HD, Fonager RF, Nielsen JB, et al. Observer agreement and accuracy of (18)F-sodium fluoride PET/CT in the diagnosis of bone metastases in prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:344–9.
Xiao J, Wang D, Guo B, et al. Observer agreement and accuracy of 18F-sodium fluoride PET/computed tomography in the diagnosis of skull-base bone invasion and osseous metastases in newly diagnosed nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2020;41:942–9.
Han EJ, O JH, Yoon H, et al. FDG PET/CT response in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: Reader variability and association with clinical outcome. Medicine (Baltim). 2016;95:e4983.
Ceriani L, Barrington S, Biggi A, et al. Training improves the interobserver agreement of the expert positron emission tomography review panel in primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma: interim analysis in the ongoing International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group-37 study. Hematol Oncol. 2017;35:548–53.
Arimoto MK, Nakamoto Y, Higashi T, et al. Intra- and inter-observer agreement in the visual interpretation of interim 18F-FDG PET/CT in malignant lymphoma: influence of clinical information. Acta Radiol. 2018;59:1218–24.
Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3059–67.
Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3048–58.
Bradley KM, McGowan DR, Gleeson FV, et al. Embrace progress. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1169–1169.
Barrington SF, Kluge R. FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:97–110.
Enilorac B, Lasnon C, Nganoa C, et al. Does PET reconstruction method affect Deauville score in lymphoma patients? J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1049–55.
Wyrzykowski M, Siminiak N, Kazmierczak M, et al. Impact of the Q.Clear reconstruction algorithm on the interpretation of PET/CT images in patients with lymphoma. EJNMMI Res. 2020;10:99.
Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181–200.
Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, 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, Burggraaff CN, Pieplenbosch S, et al. Quantitative implications of the updated EARL 2019 PET-CT performance standards. EJNMMI Phys. 2019;6:28.
Nestle U, Rischke HC, Eschmann SM, et al. Improved inter-observer agreement of an expert review panel in an oncology treatment trial--Insights from a structured interventional process. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:2525–33.
Aide N, Lasnon C, Veit-Haibach P, et al. EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:17–31.