SUV variability in EARL-accredited conventional and digital PET
SUV variability in EARL-accredited conventional and digital PET
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13550-019-0569-7
复制
发表时间：
2019-12-10
期刊：
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
van Dalen, Jorn A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Koopman, Danielle;Jager, Pieter L.;van Dalen, Jorn A.
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 Delta SUV between cPET and dPET was calculated for each SUV-parameter. Furthermore, we calculated repeatability coefficients, reflecting the 95% confidence interval of Delta SUV.Results: We included 128 lesions with an average size of 19 +/- 14 mm. Average Delta SUVs were 6-8% with dPET values being higher for all three SUV-parameters (p < 0.001). Delta SUVmax was significantly higher than Delta SUVmean (8% vs. 6%, p = 0.002) and than Delta SUVpeak (8% vs. 7%, p = 0.03). Repeatability coefficients across individual lesions were 27% (Delta SUVmean and Delta SUVpeak) and 33% (Delta SUVmax) (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.
