Impact of scanner harmonization on PET-based treatment response assessment in metastatic melanoma

Patients with metastatic melanoma often receive 18F-FDG PET/CT scans on different scanners throughout their monitoring period. In this study, we quantified the impact of scanner harmonization on longitudinal changes in PET standardized uptake values using various harmonization and normalization meth...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Physics in medicine & biology 2020-11, Vol.65 (22), p.225003-225003
Hauptverfasser: Weisman, Amy J, Bradshaw, Tyler J, Namias, Mauro, Jeraj, Robert
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 225003
container_issue 22
container_start_page 225003
container_title Physics in medicine & biology
container_volume 65
creator Weisman, Amy J
Bradshaw, Tyler J
Namias, Mauro
Jeraj, Robert
description Patients with metastatic melanoma often receive 18F-FDG PET/CT scans on different scanners throughout their monitoring period. In this study, we quantified the impact of scanner harmonization on longitudinal changes in PET standardized uptake values using various harmonization and normalization methods, including an anthropomorphic PET phantom. Twenty metastatic melanoma patients received at least two FDG PET/CT scans, each on two different scanners with an average of 4 months (range: 2-8) between. Scans from a General Electric (GE) Discovery 710 PET CT−1 were harmonized to the GE Discovery VCT using image reconstruction settings matching recovery coefficients in an anthropomorphic phantom with bone equivalent inserts and wall-less synthetic lesions. In patient images, SUVmax was measured for each melanoma lesion and time-point. Lesions were classified as progressing, stable, or responding based on pre-defined threshold of ±30% change in SUVmax. For comparison, harmonization was also performed using simpler methods, including harmonization using a NEMA phantom, post-reconstruction filtering, reference region normalization of SUVmax, and use of SUVpeak instead of SUVmax. In the 20 patients, 90 lesions across two time-points were available for treatment response assessment. Treatment response classification changed in 47% (42/90) of cases after harmonization with anthropomorphic phantom. Before harmonization, 37% (33/90) of the lesions were classified as stable (changing less than 30% between two time-points), while the fraction of stable lesions increased to 58% (52/90) after harmonization. Harmonization with the NEMA phantom agreed with harmonization with the anthropomorphic phantom in 91% (82/90) of cases. Post-reconstruction filtering agreed with anthropomorphic phantom-based harmonization in 83% (75/90) cases. The utilization of reference regions for normalization or SUVpeak was unable to correct for changes as identified by the anthropomorphic phantom-based harmonization. Overall, PET scanner harmonization has a major impact on individual lesion treatment response classification in metastatic melanoma patients. Harmonization using the NEMA phantom yielded similar results to harmonization using anthropomorphic phantom, while the only acceptable post-reconstruction technique was post-reconstruction filtering. Phantom-based harmonization is therefore strongly recommended when comparing lesion uptake across time-points when the images have been acquired on
doi_str_mv 10.1088/1361-6560/abb6bb
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_32906111</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2441601837</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-f2b942d4b265e6829e242f3ada7f6bbe0f24d7f2d0080f118f8bac42c502e25e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1LxDAQxYMoun7cPUmPHqxO0rTbPYr4BYIe9Bwm7QQr26Rmsgf968266k0YyDC898j7CXEs4VxC217IqpFlUzdwgdY21m6J2d9pW8wAKlkuZF3viX3mNwApW6V3xV6lFtBIKWcC78cJu1QEV3CH3lMsXjGOwQ-fmIbgizxP18-lRaa-SJEwjeRTEYmn4JkKZCbm79vgi5EScsrOLq9L9GHEQ7HjcMl09PMeiJeb6-eru_Lh8fb-6vKh7DSoVDplF1r12qqmpqZVC1JauQp7nLvcjMAp3c-d6gFacLmIay12WnU1KFI1VQfidJM7xfC-Ik5mHLijZf4FhRUbpbVsQLbVPEthI-1iYI7kzBSHEeOHkWDWYM2aollTNBuw2XLyk76yI_V_hl-SWXC2EQxhMm9hFX0u-3_eF_-jg_E</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2441601837</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Impact of scanner harmonization on PET-based treatment response assessment in metastatic melanoma</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>IOP Publishing Journals</source><source>Institute of Physics (IOP) Journals - HEAL-Link</source><creator>Weisman, Amy J ; Bradshaw, Tyler J ; Namias, Mauro ; Jeraj, Robert</creator><creatorcontrib>Weisman, Amy J ; Bradshaw, Tyler J ; Namias, Mauro ; Jeraj, Robert</creatorcontrib><description>Patients with metastatic melanoma often receive 18F-FDG PET/CT scans on different scanners throughout their monitoring period. In this study, we quantified the impact of scanner harmonization on longitudinal changes in PET standardized uptake values using various harmonization and normalization methods, including an anthropomorphic PET phantom. Twenty metastatic melanoma patients received at least two FDG PET/CT scans, each on two different scanners with an average of 4 months (range: 2-8) between. Scans from a General Electric (GE) Discovery 710 PET CT−1 were harmonized to the GE Discovery VCT using image reconstruction settings matching recovery coefficients in an anthropomorphic phantom with bone equivalent inserts and wall-less synthetic lesions. In patient images, SUVmax was measured for each melanoma lesion and time-point. Lesions were classified as progressing, stable, or responding based on pre-defined threshold of ±30% change in SUVmax. For comparison, harmonization was also performed using simpler methods, including harmonization using a NEMA phantom, post-reconstruction filtering, reference region normalization of SUVmax, and use of SUVpeak instead of SUVmax. In the 20 patients, 90 lesions across two time-points were available for treatment response assessment. Treatment response classification changed in 47% (42/90) of cases after harmonization with anthropomorphic phantom. Before harmonization, 37% (33/90) of the lesions were classified as stable (changing less than 30% between two time-points), while the fraction of stable lesions increased to 58% (52/90) after harmonization. Harmonization with the NEMA phantom agreed with harmonization with the anthropomorphic phantom in 91% (82/90) of cases. Post-reconstruction filtering agreed with anthropomorphic phantom-based harmonization in 83% (75/90) cases. The utilization of reference regions for normalization or SUVpeak was unable to correct for changes as identified by the anthropomorphic phantom-based harmonization. Overall, PET scanner harmonization has a major impact on individual lesion treatment response classification in metastatic melanoma patients. Harmonization using the NEMA phantom yielded similar results to harmonization using anthropomorphic phantom, while the only acceptable post-reconstruction technique was post-reconstruction filtering. Phantom-based harmonization is therefore strongly recommended when comparing lesion uptake across time-points when the images have been acquired on different PET scanners.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0031-9155</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1361-6560</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/abb6bb</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32906111</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PHMBA7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: IOP Publishing</publisher><subject>Female ; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 ; harmonization ; Humans ; Male ; melanoma ; Melanoma - diagnostic imaging ; Melanoma - pathology ; Melanoma - therapy ; Neoplasm Metastasis ; PET ; Phantoms, Imaging ; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - instrumentation ; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - standards ; quantitation ; Reference Standards ; response ; SUV ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Physics in medicine &amp; biology, 2020-11, Vol.65 (22), p.225003-225003</ispartof><rights>2020 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-f2b942d4b265e6829e242f3ada7f6bbe0f24d7f2d0080f118f8bac42c502e25e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-f2b942d4b265e6829e242f3ada7f6bbe0f24d7f2d0080f118f8bac42c502e25e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5230-7782 ; 0000-0001-9549-7002 ; 0000-0001-5808-4102</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6560/abb6bb/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Giop$$H</linktopdf><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,53824,53871</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32906111$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Weisman, Amy J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bradshaw, Tyler J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Namias, Mauro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jeraj, Robert</creatorcontrib><title>Impact of scanner harmonization on PET-based treatment response assessment in metastatic melanoma</title><title>Physics in medicine &amp; biology</title><addtitle>PMB</addtitle><addtitle>Phys. Med. Biol</addtitle><description>Patients with metastatic melanoma often receive 18F-FDG PET/CT scans on different scanners throughout their monitoring period. In this study, we quantified the impact of scanner harmonization on longitudinal changes in PET standardized uptake values using various harmonization and normalization methods, including an anthropomorphic PET phantom. Twenty metastatic melanoma patients received at least two FDG PET/CT scans, each on two different scanners with an average of 4 months (range: 2-8) between. Scans from a General Electric (GE) Discovery 710 PET CT−1 were harmonized to the GE Discovery VCT using image reconstruction settings matching recovery coefficients in an anthropomorphic phantom with bone equivalent inserts and wall-less synthetic lesions. In patient images, SUVmax was measured for each melanoma lesion and time-point. Lesions were classified as progressing, stable, or responding based on pre-defined threshold of ±30% change in SUVmax. For comparison, harmonization was also performed using simpler methods, including harmonization using a NEMA phantom, post-reconstruction filtering, reference region normalization of SUVmax, and use of SUVpeak instead of SUVmax. In the 20 patients, 90 lesions across two time-points were available for treatment response assessment. Treatment response classification changed in 47% (42/90) of cases after harmonization with anthropomorphic phantom. Before harmonization, 37% (33/90) of the lesions were classified as stable (changing less than 30% between two time-points), while the fraction of stable lesions increased to 58% (52/90) after harmonization. Harmonization with the NEMA phantom agreed with harmonization with the anthropomorphic phantom in 91% (82/90) of cases. Post-reconstruction filtering agreed with anthropomorphic phantom-based harmonization in 83% (75/90) cases. The utilization of reference regions for normalization or SUVpeak was unable to correct for changes as identified by the anthropomorphic phantom-based harmonization. Overall, PET scanner harmonization has a major impact on individual lesion treatment response classification in metastatic melanoma patients. Harmonization using the NEMA phantom yielded similar results to harmonization using anthropomorphic phantom, while the only acceptable post-reconstruction technique was post-reconstruction filtering. Phantom-based harmonization is therefore strongly recommended when comparing lesion uptake across time-points when the images have been acquired on different PET scanners.</description><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18</subject><subject>harmonization</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>melanoma</subject><subject>Melanoma - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Melanoma - pathology</subject><subject>Melanoma - therapy</subject><subject>Neoplasm Metastasis</subject><subject>PET</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - instrumentation</subject><subject>Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - standards</subject><subject>quantitation</subject><subject>Reference Standards</subject><subject>response</subject><subject>SUV</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0031-9155</issn><issn>1361-6560</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM1LxDAQxYMoun7cPUmPHqxO0rTbPYr4BYIe9Bwm7QQr26Rmsgf968266k0YyDC898j7CXEs4VxC217IqpFlUzdwgdY21m6J2d9pW8wAKlkuZF3viX3mNwApW6V3xV6lFtBIKWcC78cJu1QEV3CH3lMsXjGOwQ-fmIbgizxP18-lRaa-SJEwjeRTEYmn4JkKZCbm79vgi5EScsrOLq9L9GHEQ7HjcMl09PMeiJeb6-eru_Lh8fb-6vKh7DSoVDplF1r12qqmpqZVC1JauQp7nLvcjMAp3c-d6gFacLmIay12WnU1KFI1VQfidJM7xfC-Ik5mHLijZf4FhRUbpbVsQLbVPEthI-1iYI7kzBSHEeOHkWDWYM2aollTNBuw2XLyk76yI_V_hl-SWXC2EQxhMm9hFX0u-3_eF_-jg_E</recordid><startdate>20201111</startdate><enddate>20201111</enddate><creator>Weisman, Amy J</creator><creator>Bradshaw, Tyler J</creator><creator>Namias, Mauro</creator><creator>Jeraj, Robert</creator><general>IOP Publishing</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5230-7782</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9549-7002</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5808-4102</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201111</creationdate><title>Impact of scanner harmonization on PET-based treatment response assessment in metastatic melanoma</title><author>Weisman, Amy J ; Bradshaw, Tyler J ; Namias, Mauro ; Jeraj, Robert</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-f2b942d4b265e6829e242f3ada7f6bbe0f24d7f2d0080f118f8bac42c502e25e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18</topic><topic>harmonization</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>melanoma</topic><topic>Melanoma - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Melanoma - pathology</topic><topic>Melanoma - therapy</topic><topic>Neoplasm Metastasis</topic><topic>PET</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - instrumentation</topic><topic>Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - standards</topic><topic>quantitation</topic><topic>Reference Standards</topic><topic>response</topic><topic>SUV</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Weisman, Amy J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bradshaw, Tyler J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Namias, Mauro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jeraj, Robert</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Physics in medicine &amp; biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Weisman, Amy J</au><au>Bradshaw, Tyler J</au><au>Namias, Mauro</au><au>Jeraj, Robert</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Impact of scanner harmonization on PET-based treatment response assessment in metastatic melanoma</atitle><jtitle>Physics in medicine &amp; biology</jtitle><stitle>PMB</stitle><addtitle>Phys. Med. Biol</addtitle><date>2020-11-11</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>65</volume><issue>22</issue><spage>225003</spage><epage>225003</epage><pages>225003-225003</pages><issn>0031-9155</issn><eissn>1361-6560</eissn><coden>PHMBA7</coden><abstract>Patients with metastatic melanoma often receive 18F-FDG PET/CT scans on different scanners throughout their monitoring period. In this study, we quantified the impact of scanner harmonization on longitudinal changes in PET standardized uptake values using various harmonization and normalization methods, including an anthropomorphic PET phantom. Twenty metastatic melanoma patients received at least two FDG PET/CT scans, each on two different scanners with an average of 4 months (range: 2-8) between. Scans from a General Electric (GE) Discovery 710 PET CT−1 were harmonized to the GE Discovery VCT using image reconstruction settings matching recovery coefficients in an anthropomorphic phantom with bone equivalent inserts and wall-less synthetic lesions. In patient images, SUVmax was measured for each melanoma lesion and time-point. Lesions were classified as progressing, stable, or responding based on pre-defined threshold of ±30% change in SUVmax. For comparison, harmonization was also performed using simpler methods, including harmonization using a NEMA phantom, post-reconstruction filtering, reference region normalization of SUVmax, and use of SUVpeak instead of SUVmax. In the 20 patients, 90 lesions across two time-points were available for treatment response assessment. Treatment response classification changed in 47% (42/90) of cases after harmonization with anthropomorphic phantom. Before harmonization, 37% (33/90) of the lesions were classified as stable (changing less than 30% between two time-points), while the fraction of stable lesions increased to 58% (52/90) after harmonization. Harmonization with the NEMA phantom agreed with harmonization with the anthropomorphic phantom in 91% (82/90) of cases. Post-reconstruction filtering agreed with anthropomorphic phantom-based harmonization in 83% (75/90) cases. The utilization of reference regions for normalization or SUVpeak was unable to correct for changes as identified by the anthropomorphic phantom-based harmonization. Overall, PET scanner harmonization has a major impact on individual lesion treatment response classification in metastatic melanoma patients. Harmonization using the NEMA phantom yielded similar results to harmonization using anthropomorphic phantom, while the only acceptable post-reconstruction technique was post-reconstruction filtering. Phantom-based harmonization is therefore strongly recommended when comparing lesion uptake across time-points when the images have been acquired on different PET scanners.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>IOP Publishing</pub><pmid>32906111</pmid><doi>10.1088/1361-6560/abb6bb</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5230-7782</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9549-7002</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5808-4102</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0031-9155
ispartof Physics in medicine & biology, 2020-11, Vol.65 (22), p.225003-225003
issn 0031-9155
1361-6560
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmed_primary_32906111
source MEDLINE; IOP Publishing Journals; Institute of Physics (IOP) Journals - HEAL-Link
subjects Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
harmonization
Humans
Male
melanoma
Melanoma - diagnostic imaging
Melanoma - pathology
Melanoma - therapy
Neoplasm Metastasis
PET
Phantoms, Imaging
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - instrumentation
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - standards
quantitation
Reference Standards
response
SUV
Treatment Outcome
title Impact of scanner harmonization on PET-based treatment response assessment in metastatic melanoma
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T22%3A27%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Impact%20of%20scanner%20harmonization%20on%20PET-based%20treatment%20response%20assessment%20in%20metastatic%20melanoma&rft.jtitle=Physics%20in%20medicine%20&%20biology&rft.au=Weisman,%20Amy%20J&rft.date=2020-11-11&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=22&rft.spage=225003&rft.epage=225003&rft.pages=225003-225003&rft.issn=0031-9155&rft.eissn=1361-6560&rft.coden=PHMBA7&rft_id=info:doi/10.1088/1361-6560/abb6bb&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2441601837%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2441601837&rft_id=info:pmid/32906111&rfr_iscdi=true