4.6 Article

A novel approach for quantitative harmonization in PET

Journal

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
Volume 63, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aabb5f

Keywords

quantitation; harmonization; positron emission tomography; resolution; noise

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging allows for measurement of activity concentrations of a given radiotracer in vivo. The quantitative capabilities of PET imaging are particularly important in the context of monitoring response to treatment, where quantitative changes in tracer uptake could be used as a biomarker of treatment response. Reconstruction algorithms and settings have a significant impact on PET quantification. In this work we introduce a novel harmonization methodology requiring only a simple cylindrical phantom and show that it can match the performance of more complex harmonization approaches based on phantoms with spherical inserts. Resolution and noise measurements from cylindrical phantoms are used to simulate the spherical inserts from NEMA image quality phantoms. An optimization algorithm was used to find the optimal smoothing filters for the simulated NEMA phantom images to identify those that best harmonized the PET scanners. Our methodology was tested on seven different PET models from two manufacturers installed at five institutions. Our methodology is able to predict contrast recovery coefficients (CRCs) from NEMA phantoms with errors within +/- 5.2% for CRCmax and +/- 3.7% for CRCmean (limits of agreement = 95%). After applying the proposed harmonization protocol, all the CRC values were within the tolerances from EANM. Quantitative harmonization in compliance with the EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation program is achieved in a simpler way, without the need of NEMA phantoms. This may lead to simplified scanner harmonization workflows more accessible to smaller institutions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available