Importance of defect detectability in Positron Emission Tomography imaging of abdominal lesions

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Division of Radiology, Public Central Hospital of Matto Ishikawa, Hakusan, Japan

2 PET Imaging Center, Public Central Hospital of Matto Ishikawa, Hakusan, Japan

3 Department of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan

4 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Kanazawa University Hospital, Kanazawa, Japan

Abstract

Objective(s): This study was designed to assess defect detectability in positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of abdominal lesions.
Methods: A National Electrical Manufactures Association International Electrotechnical Commission phantom was used. The simulated abdominal lesion was scanned for 10 min using dynamic list-mode acquisition method. Images, acquired with scan duration of 1-10 min, were reconstructed using VUE point HD and a 4.7 mm full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) Gaussian filter. Iteration-subset combinations of 2-16 and 2-32 were used. Visual and physical analyses were performed using the acquired images. To sequentially evaluate defect detectability in clinical settings, we examined two middle-aged male subjects. One had a liver cyst (approximately 10 mm in diameter) and the other suffered from pancreatic cancer with an inner defect region (approximately 9 mm in diameter).
Results: In the phantom study, at least 6 and 3 min acquisition durations were required to visualize 10 and 13 mm defect spheres, respectively. On the other hand, spheres with diameters ≥17 mm could be detected even if the acquisition duration was only 1 min. The visual scores were significantly correlated with background (BG) variability. In clinical settings, the liver cyst could be slightly visualized with an acquisition duration of 6 min, although image quality was suboptimal. For pancreatic cancer, the acquisition duration of 3 min was insufficient to clearly describe the defect region.
Conclusion: The improvement of BG variability is the most important factor for enhancing lesion detection. Our clinical scan duration (3 min/bed) may not be suitable for the detection of small lesions or accurate tumor delineation since an acquisition duration of at least 6 min is required to visualize 10 mm lesions, regardless of reconstruction parameters. Improvements in defect detectability are important for radiation treatment planning and accurate PET-based diagnosis.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1.  

    1. Erdi YE, Nehmeh SA, Mulnix T, Humm JL, Watson CC. PET performance measurements for an LSO-based combined PET/CT scanner using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2-2001 standard. J Nucl Med. 2004; 45(5):813-21.
    2. Brambilla M, Secco C, Dominietto M, Matheoud R, Sacchetti G, Inglese E. Performance characteristics obtained for a new 3-dimensional lutetium oxyorthosilicate-based whole-body PET/CT scanner with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2-2001 standard. J Nucl Med. 2005; 46(12):2083-91.
    3. Matsumoto K, Kitamura K, Mizuta T, Tanaka K, Yamamoto S, Sakamoto S, et al. Performance characteristics of a new 3-dimensional continuous-emission and spiral-transmission high-sensitivity and high-resolution PET camera evaluated with the NEMA NU 2-2001 standard. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(1):83-90.
    4. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Quon A, Schiepers C, Waldherr C, Silverman DH, et al. Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(5):797-801.
    5. Visvikis D, Cheze-LeRest C, Costa DC, Bomanji J, Gacinovic S, Ell PJ. Influence of OSEM and segmented attenuation correction in the calculation of standardised uptake values for [18F]FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001; 28(9):1326-35.
    6. Tatsumi M, Clark PA, Nakamoto Y, Wahl RL. Impact of body habitus on quantitative and qualitative image quality in whole-body FDG-PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003; 30(1):40-5.
    7. Nagaki A, Onoguchi M, Matsutomo N. Patient weight-based acquisition protocols to optimize (18) F-FDG PET/CT image quality. J Nucl Med Technol. 2011;39(2):72-6.
    8. Fukukita H, Suzuki K, Matsumoto K, Terauchi T, Daisaki H, Ikari Y, et al. Japanese guideline for the oncology FDG-PET/CT data acquisition protocol: synopsis of Version 2.0. Ann Nucl Med. 2014; 28(7):693-705
    9. Zheng Y, Sun X, Wang J, Zhang L, DI X, Xu Y. FDG-PET/ CT imaging for tumor staging and definition of tumor volumes in radiation treatment planning in non-small cell lung cancer. Oncol Lett. 2014;7(4):1015- 20.
    10. Riou O, Serrano B, Azria D, Paulmier B, Villeneuve R, Fenoglietto P, et al. Integrating respiratory-gated PET-based target volume delineation in liver SBRT planning, a pilot study. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9:127.
    11. Okubo M, Nishimura Y, Nakamatsu K, Okumura M, Shibata T, Kanamori S, et al. Static and moving phantom studies for radiation treatment planning in a positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) system. Ann Nucl Med. 2008; 22(7):579-86.
    12. Delbeke D, Martin WH, Sandler MP, Chapman WC, Wright JK Jr, Pinson CW. Evaluation of benign vs malignant hepatic lesions with positron emission tomography. Arch Surg. 1998;133(5):515-6.
    13. Maurea S, Mainolfi C, Bazzicalupo L, Panico MR, Imparato C, Alfano B, et al. Imaging of adrenal tumors using FDG PET: comparison of benign and malignant lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;173(1):25-9.
    14. Sperti C, Pasquali C, Chierichetti F, Liessi G, Ferlin G, Pedrazzoli S. Value of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of patients with cystic tumors of the pancreas. Ann Surg. 2001; 234(5):675-80.
    15. Lin CY, Chen HY, Ding HJ, Yen KY, Kao CH. FDG PET or PET/CT in evaluation of renal angiomyolipoma. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14(2):337-42.
    16. Metser U, Miller E, Kessler A, Lerman H, Lievshitz G, Oren R, et al. Solid splenic masses: evaluation with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(1):52-9.
    17. Mananga ES, El Fakhri G, Schaefferkoetter J, Bonab AA, Ouyang J. Myocardial defect detection using PET-CT: phantom studies. PLoS One. 2014 5;9(2): e88200.
    18. Tang J, Rahmim A, Lautamäki R, Lodge MA, Bengel FM, Tsui BM. Optimization of Rb-82 PET acquisition and reconstruction protocols for myocardial perfusion defect detection. Phys Med Biol. 2009; 54(10):3161-71.
    19. Matsunari I, Yoneyama T, Kanayama S, Matsudaira M, Nakajima K, Taki J, et al. Phantom studies for estimation of defect size on cardiac (18)F SPECT and PET: implications for myocardial viability assessment. J Nucl Med. 2001; 42(10):1579-85.
    20. Baiocchi GL, Portolani N, Bertagna F, Gheza F, Pizzocaro C, Giubbini R, et al. Possible additional value of 18FDG-PET in managing pancreas intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: preliminary results. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 27:10.
    21. Hong HS, Yun M, Cho A, Choi JY, Kim MJ, Kim KW, et al. The utility of F-18 FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. Clin Nucl Med. 2010; 35(10):776-9.
    22. Takanami K, Hiraide T, Tsuda M, Nakamura Y, Kaneta T, Takase K, et al. Additional value of FDG PET/ CT to contrast-enhanced CT in the differentiation between benign and malignant intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas with mural nodules. Ann Nucl Med. 2011; 25(7):501-10.
    23. Kim YI, Kim SK, Lee JW, Lee SM, Kim TS. Ovarian mass mimicking malignancy: a case report. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010; 44(4):290-3.
    24. Schaefferkoetter J, Ouyang J, Rakvongthai Y, Nappi C, El Fakhri G. Effect of time-of-flight and point spread function modeling on detectability of myocardial defects in PET. Med Phys. 2014; 41(6):062502.
    25. Brambilla M, Cannillo B, Dominietto M, Leva L, Secco C, Inglese E. Characterization of ordered-subsets expectation maximization with 3D post-reconstruction Gauss filtering and comparison with filtered backprojection in 99mTc SPECT. Ann Nucl Med. 2005;19(2):75-82.
    26. Nagamachi S, Wakamatsu H, Kiyohara S, Fujita S, Futami S, Arita H, et al. The reproducibility of deep-inspiration breath-hold (18)F-FDG PET/CT technique in diagnosing various cancers affected by respiratory motion. Ann Nucl Med. 2010;24(3):171-8.
    27. Yukutake M, Sasaki T, Serikawa M, Minami T, Okazaki A, Ishigaki T, et al. The effect of respiratory-gated positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with pancreatic cancer. Hell J Nucl Med. 2014;17(1):31-6.

     

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics