Evaluation of the Effect of Tumor Position on Standardized Uptake Value Using Time-of-Flight Reconstruction and Point Spread Function

Document Type : Technical note


1 Division of Radiological Technology, Saitama Prefectural Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan

2 Graduate School of Radiological Technology, Gunma Prefectural College of Health Sciences, Gunma, Japan

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

4 Division of Molecular Imaging, Saitama Prefectural Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan

5 Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA


Objective(s): The present study was conducted to examine whether the standardized uptake value (SUV) may be affected by the spatial position of a lesion in the radial direction on positron emission tomography (PET) images, obtained via two methods based on time-of-flight (TOF) reconstruction and point spread function (PSF).
Methods: A cylinder phantom with the sphere (30mm diameter), located in the center was used in this study. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) concentrations of 5.3 kBq/ml and 21.2 kBq/ml were used for the background in the cylinder phantom and the central sphere respectively. By the use of TOF and PSF, SUVmax and SUVmean were determined while moving the phantom in a horizontal direction (X direction) from the center of field of view (FOV: 0 mm) at 50, 100, 150 and 200 mm positions, respectively. Furthermore, we examined 41 patients (23 male, 18 female, mean age: 68±11.2 years) with lymph node tumors , who had undergone 18F-FDG PET examinations. The distance of each lymph node from FOV center was measured, based on the clinical images.
Results: As the distance of a lesion from the FOV center exceeded 100 mm, the value of SUVmax, which was obtained with the cylinder phantom, was overestimated, while SUVmean by TOF and/or PSF was underestimated. Based on the clinical examinations, the average volume of interest was 8.5 cm3. Concomitant use of PSF increased SUVmax and SUVmean by 27.9% and 2.8%, respectively. However, size of VOI and distance from the FOV center did not affect SUVmax or SUVmean in clinical examinations.
Conclusion: The reliability of SUV quantification by TOF and/or PSF decreased, when the tumor was located at a 100 mm distance (or farther) from the center of FOV. In clinical examinations, if the lymph node was located within 100 mm distance from the center of FOV, SUV remained stable within a constantly increasing range by use of both TOF and PSF. We conclude that, use of both TOF and PSF may be helpful.


Main Subjects


    1. Ter-Pogossian MM, Phelps ME, Hoffman EJ, Mullani NA. A positron-emission transaxial tomography for nuclear imaging (PETT). Radiology. 1975;114(1):89-98.
    2. Nutt R. 1999 ICP Distinguished Scientist Award. The history of positron emission tomography. Mol Imaging Biol. 2002;4(1):11-26.
    3. Levin Klausen T, Hogild Keller S, Vinter Olesen O, Aznar M, Andersen FL. Innovation in PET/CT. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;56(3):268-79.
    4. Conti M. Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(6):1147-57.
    5. Krishnamoorthy S, LeGeyt B, Werner ME, Kaul M, Newcomer FM, Karp JS, et al. Design and performance of a high spatial resolution, time-of-flight PET detector. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2014;61(3):1092-8.
    6. Ko GB, Lee JS. Performance characterization of high quantum efficiency metal package photomultiplier tubes for time-of-flight and high-resolution PET applications. Med Phys. 2015;42(1):510-20.
    7. Kadmas DJ, Casey ME, Conti M, Jakoby BW, Lois C, Townsend DW. Impact of time-of flight on PET tumor detection. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(8):1315-23.
    8. 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):1465-78.
    9. Alongi P, Picchio M, Bettinardi V, Samanes AM, Landoni C, Orlandi G, et al. Impact of time-of-flight (TOF) and point-spread-function (PSF) PET on whole-body oncologic studies. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(Suppl 1):2344.
    10. Lasnon C, Hicks RJ, Beauregard JM, Milner A, Paciencia M, Guizard AV, et al. Impact of point spread function reconstruction on thoracic lymph node staging with 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37(10):971-6.
    11. Akamatsu G, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Tsutsui Y, Baba S, Sasaki M. Influence of point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstructions on standardized uptake value of lymph node metastases in FDG-PET. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(1):226-30.
    12. Prieto E, Dominguez-Prado I, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Penuelas I, Richter JA, Marti-Climent JM. Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38(2):103-9.
    13. Bettinardi , Presotto L, Rapisarda E, Picchino M, Gianolli L, Gilardi MC. Physical performance of the new hybrid PET/CT Discovery-690. Med Phys. 2011;38(10):5394-411.
    14. 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.
    15. Biehl KJ, Kong FM, Dehdashti F, Jin JY, Mutic S, El Naqa I, et al. 18F-FDG PET definition of gross tumor volume for radiotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer: is a single standardized uptake value threshold approach appropriate? J Nucl Med. 2006;47(11):1808-12.
    16. Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(11):1716-22.
    17. Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Quak E, Gervais R, Do P, Dubos-Arvis C, et al. Harmonizing SUVs in multicenter trials when using different generation PET system: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(7):985-96.
    18. Fukukita H, Senda M, Terauchi T, Suzuki K, Daisaki H. Matsumoto K, et al. Japanese guideline for the oncology FDG-PET/CT data acquisition protocol: synopsis of version 1.0. Ann Nucl Med. 2010;24(4):325-34.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.