ArticlePloS one2018
Use of count-based image reconstruction to evaluate the variability and repeatability of measured standardised uptake values.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A review of harmonization strategies for quantitative PET.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standardized uptake values (SUVs) are the most widely used quantitative imaging biomarkers in PET. It is important to evaluate the variability and repeatability of measured SUVs. Phantom studies seem to be essential for this purpose; however, repetitive phantom scanning is not recommended due to the decay of radioactivity. In this study, we performed count-based image reconstruction to avoid the influence of decay using two different PET/CT scanners. By adjusting the ratio of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose solution to tap water, a NEMA IEC body phantom was set for SUVs of 4.0 inside six hot spheres. The PET data were obtained using two scanners (Aquiduo and Celesteion; Toshiba Medical Systems, Tochigi, Japan). We set the start time for image reconstruction when the total radioactivity in the phantom was 2.53 kBq/cc, and employed the counts of the first 2-min acquisition as the standard. To maintain the number of counts for each image, we set the acquisition time for image reconstruction depending on the decay of radioactivity. We obtained 50 images, and calculated the SUVmax and SUVpeak of all six spheres in each image. The average values of the SUVmax were used to calculate the recovery coefficients to compare those measured by the two different scanners. Bland-Altman analyses of the SUVs measured by the two scanners were also performed. The measured SUVs using the two scanners exhibited a 10-30% difference, and the standard deviation (SD) of the measured SUVs was between 0.1-0.2. The Celesteion always exhibited higher values than the Aquiduo. The smaller sphere exhibited a larger SD, and the SUVpeak had a smaller SD than the SUVmax. The Bland-Altman analyses showed poor agreement between the SUVs measured by the two scanners. The recovery coefficient curves obtained from the two scanners were considerably different. The Celesteion exhibited higher recovery coefficients than the Aquiduo, especially at approximately 20-mm-diameter. Additionally, the curves were lower than those calculated from the standard 30-min acquisition images. We propound count-based image reconstruction to evaluate the variability and repeatability of measured SUVs. These results are also applicable for the standardization and harmonization of SUVs in multi-institutional studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.