Nuklearmedizin 2019; 58(02): 178
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1683691
Poster
Leuchtfeuer
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Inter-site variability of quality control procedures and NEMA image quality in PET/MRI systems

A Valladares
1   Medical University of vienna, QIMP Team, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Vienna, Austria
,
C Comtat
2   Service Hospitalier Frédéric Joliot, IMIV, CEA, INSERM, CNRS, Univ. Paris-Sud, Orsay, France
,
Z Chalampalakis
2   Service Hospitalier Frédéric Joliot, IMIV, CEA, INSERM, CNRS, Univ. Paris-Sud, Orsay, France
,
M Koole
3   University Hospitals Leuven and KU Leuven, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Leuven, Belgium
,
J Nuyts
3   University Hospitals Leuven and KU Leuven, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Leuven, Belgium
,
R Boellaard
4   VU University Medical Center, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
L DalToso
5   King's College London and Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, PET Imaging Centre, Division of Imaging Sciences, London, UK
,
P Marsden
5   King's College London and Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, PET Imaging Centre, Division of Imaging Sciences, London, UK
,
J MacKewn
5   King's College London and Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, PET Imaging Centre, Division of Imaging Sciences, London, UK
,
S Poth
6   University Hospital Tuebingen, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Tuebingen, Germany
,
E Solari
7   Technical University of Munich, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Munich, Germany
,
S Ahangari
8   Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Department. of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Copenhagen. Denmark
,
AE Hansen
8   Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Department. of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Copenhagen. Denmark
,
T Beyer
1   Medical University of vienna, QIMP Team, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Vienna, Austria
,
I Rausch
1   Medical University of vienna, QIMP Team, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Vienna, Austria
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 March 2019 (online)

Also available at
 
 

    Ziel/Aim:

    This work aims at collecting relevant information on QC procedures and PET quantification across a European PET/MRI network, including the assessment of variations of PET(/MR) quantification using NEMA image quality phantom scans.

    Methodik/Methods:

    Users of PET/MRI systems at partner sites involved in the HYBRID consortium (MSCA #764458) were surveyed about local frequencies for QC procedures. The survey was composed of 24 standard QC test for PET/MRI systems. Further, all sites were asked to submit the NEMA IQ test image data from the acceptance testing. Following NEMA procedures we calculated contrast recovery, background variability (BV) and recovery coefficients (RC) for each PET/MRI system. We report QC procedures and frequencies and variations across centres. We also report coefficients of variation (CV) for the quantitative measures across the PET/MRI systems.

    Ergebnisse/Results:

    To date, eight sites responded to the survey. All sites performed vendor-specific daily QC procedures. Significant variations across the centres were noted for other routine QC tests and testing frequencies such as PET/MRI IQ. Seven sites provided the NEMA image tests; CV of contrast for the 10 mm, 13 mm 17 mm, 22 mm, 28 mm and 37 mm spheres were 25%, 27%, 14%, 12%, 15% and 16%, respectively. CV of BV were 14%, 18%, 27%, 34%, 39% and 48%, respectively. Most of the RC values for SUVmean, and SUVmax fitted within the recovery bandwidth proposed in the update to the EARL procedures1.

    Schlussfolgerungen/Conclusions:

    Variations in performed QC procedures and testing frequencies are similar to those reported for PET/CT systems. Although NEMA IQ results between PET/MRI systems have shown be lower than those reported for a multi-centre PET/CT study before harmonisation2, additional evaluations for PET/MRI systems should be performed to get a better assessment of the inter-site variability and to achieve comparable results across centres.

    Literatur/References:

    [1] Kaalep. et.al. EJNMMI 2018; 45(8): 1344 – 1361.

    [2] Kaalep. et.al. EJNMMI 2018;45:412 – 422.


    #