Tumor volume delineation: A pilot study comparing a digital positron-emission tomography prototype with an analog positron-emission tomography system
Abstract We evaluated the potential differences of a digital positron-emission tomography (PET) prototype equipped with photon-counting detectors (D-PET, Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, Ohio, USA) in tumor volume delineation compared with the analog Gemini TF PET system (A-PET, Philips). Eleven oncol...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | World journal of nuclear medicine 2019-01, Vol.18 (1), p.45-51 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 51 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 45 |
| container_title | World journal of nuclear medicine |
| container_volume | 18 |
| creator | Nguyen, Nghi C. Vercher-Conejero, Jose Faulhaber, Peter |
| description | Abstract
We evaluated the potential differences of a digital positron-emission tomography (PET) prototype equipped with photon-counting detectors (D-PET, Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, Ohio, USA) in tumor volume delineation compared with the analog Gemini TF PET system (A-PET, Philips). Eleven oncologic patients first underwent clinical fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/computed tomography (CT) on A-PET. The D-PET ring was then inserted between the PET and CT scanner of A-PET and the patient was scanned for the second time. Two interpreters reviewed the two sets of PET/CT images for image quality and diagnostic confidence. FDG avid lesions were evaluated for volume measured at 35% and 50% of maximum standard uptake value (SUV) thresholds (35% SUV, 50% SUV), and for SUV gradient as a measure of lesion sharpness. Bland–Altman plots were used to assess the agreement between the two PET scans. Qualitative lesion conspicuity, sharpness, and diagnostic confidence were greater at D-PET than that of A-PET with favorable inter-rater agreements. Median lesion size of the 24 measured lesions was 1.6 cm. The lesion volume at D-PET was smaller at both 35% SUV and 50% SUV thresholds compared with that of A-PET, with a mean difference of − 3680.0 mm
3
at 35% SUV and − 835.3 mm
3
at 50% SUV. SUV gradient was greater at D-PET than at A-PET by 49.2% (95% confidence interval: 34.1%–60.8%). Given the smaller volume definition, coupled with improved conspicuity and sharpness, digital PET may be more robust and accurate in tumor rendering compared with analog PET not only for radiotherapy planning but also in prognostication and systemic treatment monitoring. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.4103/wjnm.WJNM_22_18 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6357708</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A570398377</galeid><sourcerecordid>A570398377</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c525t-dfd55fe292e14ed0f4841a0a72946059be5963b3273b11e7c4c8a2f4be9017e03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9klFv0zAUhSMEYtPYM2_IEhJv6WzHjhMekKppDNAGL0M8Wm5yk7hL7GA7q_pD-L9z6dauEsOx5Cj-znHu9UmStwTPGMHZ2Wpphtmvb9-vJaWSFC-SY5JjkWYZoS_jO-M4JYSJo-TU-yWOg9NCcPE6OcqwEIyz_Dj5czMN1qE7208DoBp6bUAFbc1HNEej7m1APkz1GlV2GJXTpkUK1brVQfVotF4HZ00Kg_Y-ilCwg22dGrs1Gp0NNqxHQCsdOqRMnKq37f9Vfu0DDG-SV43qPZw-rCfJz88XN-df0qsfl1_P51dpxSkPad3UnDdASwqEQY0bVjCisBK0ZDnm5QJ4mWeLjIpsQQiIilWFog1bQImJAJydJJ-2vuO0GKCuwASnejk6PSi3llZpebhjdCdbeyfzjAuBi2jw_sHA2d8T-CCXdnKxTi8pyYuC4njQnmpVD1KbxkazKlZfyTkXOCuLTGyo2T-o-NSxUZU10Oj4_UDw4YmgA9WHzseL3FyfPwTPtmDlrPcOml2FBMtNlOQmSnIfpah497QxO_4xOBG43gIr2wdw_rafVuBkZG-NXT3nKxmXfwMnt4GTj4HbFx86DXFj18bn_vAefID1Mg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2168820017</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Tumor volume delineation: A pilot study comparing a digital positron-emission tomography prototype with an analog positron-emission tomography system</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Thieme Connect Journals Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Nguyen, Nghi C. ; Vercher-Conejero, Jose ; Faulhaber, Peter</creator><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Nghi C. ; Vercher-Conejero, Jose ; Faulhaber, Peter</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
We evaluated the potential differences of a digital positron-emission tomography (PET) prototype equipped with photon-counting detectors (D-PET, Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, Ohio, USA) in tumor volume delineation compared with the analog Gemini TF PET system (A-PET, Philips). Eleven oncologic patients first underwent clinical fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/computed tomography (CT) on A-PET. The D-PET ring was then inserted between the PET and CT scanner of A-PET and the patient was scanned for the second time. Two interpreters reviewed the two sets of PET/CT images for image quality and diagnostic confidence. FDG avid lesions were evaluated for volume measured at 35% and 50% of maximum standard uptake value (SUV) thresholds (35% SUV, 50% SUV), and for SUV gradient as a measure of lesion sharpness. Bland–Altman plots were used to assess the agreement between the two PET scans. Qualitative lesion conspicuity, sharpness, and diagnostic confidence were greater at D-PET than that of A-PET with favorable inter-rater agreements. Median lesion size of the 24 measured lesions was 1.6 cm. The lesion volume at D-PET was smaller at both 35% SUV and 50% SUV thresholds compared with that of A-PET, with a mean difference of − 3680.0 mm
3
at 35% SUV and − 835.3 mm
3
at 50% SUV. SUV gradient was greater at D-PET than at A-PET by 49.2% (95% confidence interval: 34.1%–60.8%). Given the smaller volume definition, coupled with improved conspicuity and sharpness, digital PET may be more robust and accurate in tumor rendering compared with analog PET not only for radiotherapy planning but also in prognostication and systemic treatment monitoring.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1450-1147</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1607-3312</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4103/wjnm.WJNM_22_18</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30774546</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India: Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd</publisher><subject>Computed tomography ; Confidence intervals ; Conspicuity ; Delineation ; Diagnostic systems ; Emission analysis ; Image quality ; Interpreters ; Lesions ; Medical imaging ; Methods ; Original ; Original Article ; Patients ; Positron emission ; Radiation therapy ; Scanners ; Sensors ; Sharpness ; Studies ; Thresholds ; Tomography ; Tumors ; Work stations</subject><ispartof>World journal of nuclear medicine, 2019-01, Vol.18 (1), p.45-51</ispartof><rights>Sociedade Brasileira de Neurocirurgia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd.</rights><rights>2019. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Copyright: © 2019 World Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c525t-dfd55fe292e14ed0f4841a0a72946059be5963b3273b11e7c4c8a2f4be9017e03</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6357708/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6357708/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,20891,27924,27925,53791,53793,54587,54615</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30774546$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Nghi C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vercher-Conejero, Jose</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faulhaber, Peter</creatorcontrib><title>Tumor volume delineation: A pilot study comparing a digital positron-emission tomography prototype with an analog positron-emission tomography system</title><title>World journal of nuclear medicine</title><addtitle>World J Nucl Med</addtitle><description>Abstract
We evaluated the potential differences of a digital positron-emission tomography (PET) prototype equipped with photon-counting detectors (D-PET, Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, Ohio, USA) in tumor volume delineation compared with the analog Gemini TF PET system (A-PET, Philips). Eleven oncologic patients first underwent clinical fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/computed tomography (CT) on A-PET. The D-PET ring was then inserted between the PET and CT scanner of A-PET and the patient was scanned for the second time. Two interpreters reviewed the two sets of PET/CT images for image quality and diagnostic confidence. FDG avid lesions were evaluated for volume measured at 35% and 50% of maximum standard uptake value (SUV) thresholds (35% SUV, 50% SUV), and for SUV gradient as a measure of lesion sharpness. Bland–Altman plots were used to assess the agreement between the two PET scans. Qualitative lesion conspicuity, sharpness, and diagnostic confidence were greater at D-PET than that of A-PET with favorable inter-rater agreements. Median lesion size of the 24 measured lesions was 1.6 cm. The lesion volume at D-PET was smaller at both 35% SUV and 50% SUV thresholds compared with that of A-PET, with a mean difference of − 3680.0 mm
3
at 35% SUV and − 835.3 mm
3
at 50% SUV. SUV gradient was greater at D-PET than at A-PET by 49.2% (95% confidence interval: 34.1%–60.8%). Given the smaller volume definition, coupled with improved conspicuity and sharpness, digital PET may be more robust and accurate in tumor rendering compared with analog PET not only for radiotherapy planning but also in prognostication and systemic treatment monitoring.</description><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Conspicuity</subject><subject>Delineation</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Emission analysis</subject><subject>Image quality</subject><subject>Interpreters</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Positron emission</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>Scanners</subject><subject>Sensors</subject><subject>Sharpness</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Thresholds</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Work stations</subject><issn>1450-1147</issn><issn>1607-3312</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>0U6</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp9klFv0zAUhSMEYtPYM2_IEhJv6WzHjhMekKppDNAGL0M8Wm5yk7hL7GA7q_pD-L9z6dauEsOx5Cj-znHu9UmStwTPGMHZ2Wpphtmvb9-vJaWSFC-SY5JjkWYZoS_jO-M4JYSJo-TU-yWOg9NCcPE6OcqwEIyz_Dj5czMN1qE7208DoBp6bUAFbc1HNEej7m1APkz1GlV2GJXTpkUK1brVQfVotF4HZ00Kg_Y-ilCwg22dGrs1Gp0NNqxHQCsdOqRMnKq37f9Vfu0DDG-SV43qPZw-rCfJz88XN-df0qsfl1_P51dpxSkPad3UnDdASwqEQY0bVjCisBK0ZDnm5QJ4mWeLjIpsQQiIilWFog1bQImJAJydJJ-2vuO0GKCuwASnejk6PSi3llZpebhjdCdbeyfzjAuBi2jw_sHA2d8T-CCXdnKxTi8pyYuC4njQnmpVD1KbxkazKlZfyTkXOCuLTGyo2T-o-NSxUZU10Oj4_UDw4YmgA9WHzseL3FyfPwTPtmDlrPcOml2FBMtNlOQmSnIfpah497QxO_4xOBG43gIr2wdw_rafVuBkZG-NXT3nKxmXfwMnt4GTj4HbFx86DXFj18bn_vAefID1Mg</recordid><startdate>201901</startdate><enddate>201901</enddate><creator>Nguyen, Nghi C.</creator><creator>Vercher-Conejero, Jose</creator><creator>Faulhaber, Peter</creator><general>Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd</general><scope>0U6</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201901</creationdate><title>Tumor volume delineation: A pilot study comparing a digital positron-emission tomography prototype with an analog positron-emission tomography system</title><author>Nguyen, Nghi C. ; Vercher-Conejero, Jose ; Faulhaber, Peter</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c525t-dfd55fe292e14ed0f4841a0a72946059be5963b3273b11e7c4c8a2f4be9017e03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Conspicuity</topic><topic>Delineation</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Emission analysis</topic><topic>Image quality</topic><topic>Interpreters</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Positron emission</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>Scanners</topic><topic>Sensors</topic><topic>Sharpness</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Thresholds</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Work stations</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Nghi C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vercher-Conejero, Jose</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faulhaber, Peter</creatorcontrib><collection>Thieme Connect Journals Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>World journal of nuclear medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nguyen, Nghi C.</au><au>Vercher-Conejero, Jose</au><au>Faulhaber, Peter</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Tumor volume delineation: A pilot study comparing a digital positron-emission tomography prototype with an analog positron-emission tomography system</atitle><jtitle>World journal of nuclear medicine</jtitle><addtitle>World J Nucl Med</addtitle><date>2019-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>45</spage><epage>51</epage><pages>45-51</pages><issn>1450-1147</issn><eissn>1607-3312</eissn><abstract>Abstract
We evaluated the potential differences of a digital positron-emission tomography (PET) prototype equipped with photon-counting detectors (D-PET, Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, Ohio, USA) in tumor volume delineation compared with the analog Gemini TF PET system (A-PET, Philips). Eleven oncologic patients first underwent clinical fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/computed tomography (CT) on A-PET. The D-PET ring was then inserted between the PET and CT scanner of A-PET and the patient was scanned for the second time. Two interpreters reviewed the two sets of PET/CT images for image quality and diagnostic confidence. FDG avid lesions were evaluated for volume measured at 35% and 50% of maximum standard uptake value (SUV) thresholds (35% SUV, 50% SUV), and for SUV gradient as a measure of lesion sharpness. Bland–Altman plots were used to assess the agreement between the two PET scans. Qualitative lesion conspicuity, sharpness, and diagnostic confidence were greater at D-PET than that of A-PET with favorable inter-rater agreements. Median lesion size of the 24 measured lesions was 1.6 cm. The lesion volume at D-PET was smaller at both 35% SUV and 50% SUV thresholds compared with that of A-PET, with a mean difference of − 3680.0 mm
3
at 35% SUV and − 835.3 mm
3
at 50% SUV. SUV gradient was greater at D-PET than at A-PET by 49.2% (95% confidence interval: 34.1%–60.8%). Given the smaller volume definition, coupled with improved conspicuity and sharpness, digital PET may be more robust and accurate in tumor rendering compared with analog PET not only for radiotherapy planning but also in prognostication and systemic treatment monitoring.</abstract><cop>A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India</cop><pub>Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd</pub><pmid>30774546</pmid><doi>10.4103/wjnm.WJNM_22_18</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1450-1147 |
| ispartof | World journal of nuclear medicine, 2019-01, Vol.18 (1), p.45-51 |
| issn | 1450-1147 1607-3312 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6357708 |
| source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; Thieme Connect Journals Open Access; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Computed tomography Confidence intervals Conspicuity Delineation Diagnostic systems Emission analysis Image quality Interpreters Lesions Medical imaging Methods Original Original Article Patients Positron emission Radiation therapy Scanners Sensors Sharpness Studies Thresholds Tomography Tumors Work stations |
| title | Tumor volume delineation: A pilot study comparing a digital positron-emission tomography prototype with an analog positron-emission tomography system |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T21%3A44%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Tumor%20volume%20delineation:%20A%20pilot%20study%20comparing%20a%20digital%20positron-emission%20tomography%20prototype%20with%20an%20analog%20positron-emission%20tomography%20system&rft.jtitle=World%20journal%20of%20nuclear%20medicine&rft.au=Nguyen,%20Nghi%20C.&rft.date=2019-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=45&rft.epage=51&rft.pages=45-51&rft.issn=1450-1147&rft.eissn=1607-3312&rft_id=info:doi/10.4103/wjnm.WJNM_22_18&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA570398377%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2168820017&rft_id=info:pmid/30774546&rft_galeid=A570398377&rfr_iscdi=true |