Artículos de revistas
Qualitative And Quantitative Comparison Between Images Obtained With Filtered Back Projection And Iterative Reconstruction In Prostate Cancer Lesions On 18f-fdg Pet
Registro en:
Quarterly Journal Of Nuclear Medicine. , v. 46, n. 2, p. 122 - 130, 2002.
11243937
2-s2.0-0036620677
Autor
Etchebehere E.C.S.C.
Macapinlac H.A.
Gonen M.
Humm J.
Yeung H.W.D.
Akhurst T.
Scher H.I.
Larson S.M.
Institución
Resumen
Background. Recently, iterative reconstruction with segmented attenuation corrections (IRSAC) has been introduced for reconstruction of 18F-FDG PET images. IRSAC produces images that are more pleasing to the eye, but qualitative and quantitative comparisons between IRSAC and filtered back projection (FBP) have not been reported for metastatic cancer. Since quantitative data has been widely used as an adjunct to interpretation of PET scans, comparison between IRSAC and FBP is needed. The purpose of this study was to compare image quality and the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) obtained with FBP and with IRSAC in metastatic lesions from prostate cancer. Methods. Twenty 18F-FDG PET scans (10 baseline and 10 follow-up) were performed in 10 patients with prostate cancer (ages 66-85 yrs, mean 73.6 yrs). Acquisition began 45 min after injection of 370 MBq of 18F-FDG. Images were reconstructed using FBP and IRSAC, and submitted to visual and quantitative analysis. SUVmax was obtained for all metastases, on FBP and IRSAC. A Jaszczak phantom study was also performed. Results. IRSAC images showed better image quality than FBP especially in regions of high activity concentrations. IRSAC detected 106 lesions on both baseline and follow-up scans, while FBP detected 100 and 95 lesions on baseline and follow-up scans, respectively. Therefore, 17 more lesions were seen on IRSAC. The mean SUVmax values on baseline scans for FBP and IRSAC were systematically different, at 4.46±1.99 and 5.13±2.67, respectively. On follow-up scans values were 3.89±1.72 for FBP and 4.29±1.93 for IRSAC. Comparison of FBP with IRSAC on baseline and follow-up scans were statistically significant (baseline: paired "t"-test p=0.0017; follow-up: paired "t"-test p=0.0008). Phantom studies reveal that these differences can be explained by the type of reconstruction filters used, and IRSAC was more accurate than FBP. Conclusions. IRSAC detects smaller volumes in phantoms, patient images are easier to interpret and more metastatic lesions were detected. In addition, IRSAC provides reproducible quantitative data, comparable to data provided by FBP. IRSAC SUV and FBP SUV are in close agreement but there was a statistically significant difference between the two, and therefore threshold values of SUV will probably need to be re-determined with IRSAC, and are likely to be 10 to 19% higher than currently reported. 46 2 122 130 Yeh, S.D., Imbriaco, M., Larson, S.M., Garza, D., Zhang, J.J., Kalaigian, H., Detection of bony metastases of androgen-independent prostate cancer by PET-FDG (1996) Nucl Med Biol, 23, pp. 693-697 Shreve, P.D., Grossman, H.B., Gross, M.D., Walh, R.L., Metastatic prostate cancer: Initial findings of PET with 2-deoxy-2-[F-18] fluoro-D-glucose (1996) Radiology, 199, pp. 751-756 Wahl, R.L., Positron emission tomography: Applications in oncology (1995) Nuclear Medicine in Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment, pp. 801-820. , In: Murray ICP, Ell PJ, editors Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone Hara, T., Kosaka, N., Kishi, H., PET imaging of prostate cancer using carbon-11-choline (1998) J Nucl Med, 39, pp. 990-995 Kubota, K., Matsuzawa, T., Ito, M., Ito, K., Fujimara, T., Abe, Y., Lung tumor imaging by positron emission tomography using C-11 L-methionine (1985) J Nucl Med, 26 (1), pp. 37-42 Lowe, V.J., Duhaylongsod, F.G., Patz, E.F., Delong, D.M., Hoffman, J.M., Wolfe, W.G., Pulmonary abnormalities and PET data analysis: A retrospective study (1997) Radiology, 202, pp. 435-439 Wahl, R.L., Zasadny, K., Helvie, M., Hutchins, G.D., Weber, B., Cody, R., Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: Initial evaluation (1993) J Clin Oncol, 11, pp. 2101-2111 Donner, A., Donald, A., Analysis of data arising from a stratified design with the cluster as unit of randomization (1987) Stat Med, 6, pp. 43-52 Westfall, P.H., Young, S.S., (1993) Resampling Based Multiple Testing, , New York: Wiley Singer, J., McClennan, B.L., The diagnosis, staging and follow-up of carcinomas of the kidney, bladder and prostate: The role of cross-sectional imaging (1989) Semin Ultrasound CT MR, 10, pp. 481-497 Visvikis, D., Cheze-LeRest, C., Costa, D.C., Bomanji, J., Gacinovic, S., Ell, P.J., Influence of OSEM and segmented attenuation correction in the calculation of standardized uptake values for [18F] FDG PET (2001) Eur J Nucl Med, 28 (9), pp. 1326-1335