O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine PET in gliomas: influence of data processing in different centres

Background PET using O -(2-[ 18 F]fluoroethyl)- l -tyrosine ( 18 F-FET) is an established method for brain tumour diagnostics, but data processing varies in different centres. This study analyses the influence of methodological differences between two centres for tumour characterization with 18 F-FE...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:EJNMMI research 2017-08, Vol.7 (1), p.64-64, Article 64
Hauptverfasser: Filss, Christian P., Albert, Nathalie L., Böning, Guido, Kops, Elena Rota, Suchorska, Bogdana, Stoffels, Gabriele, Galldiks, Norbert, Shah, Nadim J., Mottaghy, Felix M., Bartenstein, Peter, Tonn, Jörg C., Langen, Karl-Josef
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background PET using O -(2-[ 18 F]fluoroethyl)- l -tyrosine ( 18 F-FET) is an established method for brain tumour diagnostics, but data processing varies in different centres. This study analyses the influence of methodological differences between two centres for tumour characterization with 18 F-FET PET using the same PET scanner. Methodological differences between centres A and B in the evaluation of 18 F-FET PET data were identified for (1) framing of PET dynamic data, (2) data reconstruction, (3) cut-off values for tumour delineation to determine tumour-to-brain ratios (TBR) and tumour volume (T vol ) and (4) ROI definition to determine time activity curves (TACs) in the tumour. Based on the 18 F-FET PET data of 40 patients with untreated cerebral gliomas (20 WHO grade II, 10 WHO grade III, 10 WHO grade IV), the effect of different data processing in the two centres on TBR mean , TBR max , T vol , time-to-peak (TTP) and slope of the TAC was compared. Further, the effect on tumour grading was evaluated by ROC analysis. Results Significant differences between centres A and B were found especially for TBR max (2.84 ± 0.99 versus 3.34 ± 1.13; p  
ISSN:2191-219X
2191-219X
DOI:10.1186/s13550-017-0316-x