Technical note: how to determine the FDG activity for tumour PET imaging that satisfies European guidelines

Daniëlle Koopman, Jochen A C van Osch, Pieter L Jager, Carlijn J A Tenbergen, Siert Knollema, Cornelis H Slump, Jorn A van Dalen, Daniëlle Koopman, Jochen A C van Osch, Pieter L Jager, Carlijn J A Tenbergen, Siert Knollema, Cornelis H Slump, Jorn A van Dalen

Abstract

Background: For tumour imaging with PET, the literature proposes to administer a patient-specific FDG activity that depends quadratically on a patient's body weight. However, a practical approach on how to implement such a protocol in clinical practice is currently lacking. We aimed to provide a practical method to determine a FDG activity formula for whole-body PET examinations that satisfies both the EANM guidelines and this quadratic relation.

Results: We have developed a methodology that results in a formula describing the patient-specific FDG activity to administer. A PET study using the NEMA NU-2001 image quality phantom forms the basis of our method. This phantom needs to be filled with 2.0 and 20.0 kBq FDG/mL in the background and spheres, respectively. After a PET acquisition of 10 min, a reconstruction has to be performed that results in sphere recovery coefficients (RCs) that are within the specifications as defined by the EANM Research Ltd (EARL). By performing reconstructions based on shorter scan durations, the minimal scan time per bed position (T min) needs to be extracted using an image coefficient of variation (COV) of 15 %. At T min, the RCs should be within EARL specifications as well. Finally, the FDG activity (in MBq) to administer can be described by [Formula: see text] with c a constant that is typically 0.0533 (MBq/kg(2)), w the patient's body weight (in kg), and t the scan time per bed position that is chosen in a clinical setting (in seconds). We successfully demonstrated this methodology using a state-of-the-art PET/CT scanner.

Conclusions: We provide a practical method that results in a formula describing the FDG activity to administer to individual patients for whole-body PET examinations, taking into account both the EANM guidelines and a quadratic relation between FDG activity and patient's body weight. This formula is generally applicable to any PET system, using a specified image reconstruction and scan time per bed position.

Keywords: EANM guidelines; FDG-PET; Scan time protocol; Tumour imaging.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart demonstrating the eight steps to obtain a patient-specific FDG activity formula
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Phantom PET/CT images. Axial PET (a) and attenuation CT (b) images from the IQ phantom on the scanner bed. The phantom spheres and background were filled with FDG activity (ratio 10:1), and the scan duration was 10 min. The squares illustrate three ROIs in one axial plane that are used to determine the COV
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparing COV in the phantom background compartment measured at several scan durations, in graphs with standard scale (a) and log-log scale (b). A power-law fit resulted in COV = 1.26 T−0.51. The coefficient of determination r2 was 0.98, which indicates a good fit of the trend line to the data. Using the fit result, [Btrue] = 1.84 kBq/mL and COVmax = 0.15, formula 1 resulted in Tmin = 62 s. The log-log scale graph can be described by log (COV) = log (a) − b · log (T) in which the steepness of the curve is described by (b)

References

    1. Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, 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(1):181–200. doi: 10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4.
    1. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, 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. doi: 10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.
    1. Everaert H, Vanhove C, Lahoutte T, Muylle K, Caveliers V, Bossuyt A, et al. Optimal dose of 18F-FDG required for whole-body PET using an LSO PET camera. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(12):1615–9. doi: 10.1007/s00259-003-1317-8.
    1. Watson CC, Casey ME, Bendriem B, Carney JP, Townsend DW, Eberl S, et al. Optimizing injected dose in clinical PET by accurately modeling the counting-rate response functions specific to individual patient scans. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(11):1825–34.
    1. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Auerbach MA, Schiepers C, Fueger BJ, Weber WA, et al. Optimizing imaging protocols for overweight and obese patients: a lutetium orthosilicate PET/CT study. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(4):603–7.
    1. Masuda Y, Kondo C, Matsuo Y, Uetani M, Kusakabe K. Comparison of imaging protocols for 18F-FDG PET/CT in overweight patients: optimizing scan duration versus administered dose. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(6):844–8. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.060590.
    1. de Groot EH, Post N, Boellaard R, Wagenaar NR, Willemsen AT, van Dalen JA. Optimized dose regimen for whole-body FDG-PET imaging. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3(1):63. doi: 10.1186/2191-219X-3-63.
    1. EARL. New EANM FDG PET/CT accreditation specifications for SUV recovery coefficients. [30-01-2016]; Available from: . Accessed 30 Jan 2016.
    1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2–2012. Rosslyn, VA: NEMA, 2013.
    1. Boellaard R, Willemsen AT, Arends B, Visser EP. EARL procedure for assessing PET/CT system specific patient FDG activity preparations for quantitative FDG PET/CT studies. EARL website: EANM research Ltd (EARL); [30-01-2016]; Available from: . Accessed 30 Jan 2016.
    1. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(9):1519–27.
    1. Lodge MA, Chaudhry MA, Wahl RL. Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(7):1041–7. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.111.101733.
    1. Koopman D, van Dalen JA, Lagerweij MC, Arkies H, de Boer J, Oostdijk AH, et al. Improving the detection of small lesions using a state-of-the-art time-of-flight PET/CT system and small voxel reconstructions. J Nucl Med Technol. 2015;114:147215.
    1. Schaefferkoetter J, Casey M, Townsend D, El Fakhri G. Clinical impact of time-of-flight and point response modeling in PET reconstructions: a lesion detection study. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58(5):1465. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/5/1465.
    1. Teymurazyan A, Riauka T, Jans H-S, Robinson D. Properties of noise in positron emission tomography images reconstructed with filtered-backprojection and row-action maximum likelihood algorithm. J Digit Imaging. 2013;26(3):447–56. doi: 10.1007/s10278-012-9511-5.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться