Subscribe to RSS

DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768446
Impact of Region-of-Interest Delineation on Stability and Reproducibility of Liver SNR Measurements in 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT
Authors
Funding This work was supported under grant number 55707, Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
Abstract
Objective This study aims to assess the impact of various regions of interest (ROIs) and volumes of interest (VOIs) delineations on the reproducibility of liver signal-to-noise-ratio (SNRliver) measurements, as well as to find the most reproducible way to estimate it in gallium-68 positron emission tomography (68Ga-PET) imaging. We also investigated the SNRliver-weight relationship for these ROIs and VOIs delineations.
Methods A cohort of 40 patients (40 males; mean weight: 76.5 kg [58–115 kg]) with prostate cancer were included. 68Ga-PET/CT imaging (mean injected activity: 91.4 MBq [51.2 MBq to 134.1 MBq] was performed on a 5-ring bismuth germanium oxide-based Discovery IQ PET/CT using ordered subset expectation maximization image reconstruction algorithm. Afterward, circular ROIs and spherical VOIs with two different diameters of 30 and 40 mm were drawn on the right lobe of the livers. The performance of the various defined regions was evaluated by the average standardized uptake value (SUVmean), standard deviation (SD) of the SUV (SUVSD), SNRliver, and SD of the SNRliver metrics.
Results There were no significant differences in SUVmean among the various ROIs and VOIs (p > 0.05). On the other hand, the lower SUVSD was obtained by spherical VOI with diameter of 30 mm. The largest SNRliver was obtained by ROI (30 mm). The SD of SNRliver with ROI (30 mm) was also the largest, while the lowest SD of SNRliver was observed for VOI (40 mm). There is a higher correlation coefficient between the patient-dependent parameter of weight and the image quality parameter of SNRliver for both VOI (30 mm) and VOI (40 mm) compared to the ROIs.
Conclusion Our results indicate that SNRliver measurements are affected by the size and shape of the respective ROIs and VOIs. The spherical VOI with a 40 mm diameter leads to more stable and reproducible SNR measurement in the liver.
Publication History
Article published online:
16 May 2023
© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Hadaschik B. et al. PET/MRI with a 68Ga-PSMA ligand for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013; 40 (10) 1629-1630
- 2 Jadvar H. PSMA PET in prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2015; 56 (08) 1131-1132
- 3 Rauscher I, Maurer T, Fendler WP, Sommer WH, Schwaiger M, Eiber M. (68)Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer: how we review and report. Cancer Imaging 2016; 16 (01) 14
- 4 Sterzing F, Kratochwil C, Fiedler H. et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT: a new technique with high potential for the radiotherapeutic management of prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016; 43 (01) 34-41
- 5 Han S, Woo S, Kim YJ, Suh CH. Impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET on the management of patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2018; 74 (02) 179-190
- 6 Watanuki S, Tashiro M, Miyake M. et al. Long-term performance evaluation of positron emission tomography: analysis and proposal of a maintenance protocol for long-term utilization. Ann Nucl Med 2010; 24 (06) 461-468
- 7 Mawlawi O, Kappadath SC, Pan T, Rohren E, Macapinlac HA. Factors affecting quantification in PET/CT imaging. Current Medical Imaging 2008; 4 (01) 34-45
- 8 Carlier T, Ferrer L, Necib H, Bodet-Milin C, Rousseau C, Kraeber-Bodéré F. Clinical NECR in 18F-FDG PET scans: optimization of injected activity and variable acquisition time. Relationship with SNR. Phys Med Biol 2014; 59 (21) 6417-6430
- 9 Chang T, Chang G, Clark Jr JW, Diab RH, Rohren E, Mawlawi OR. Reliability of predicting image signal-to-noise ratio using noise equivalent count rate in PET imaging. Med Phys 2012; 39 (10) 5891-5900
- 10 Reynés-Llompart G, Sabaté-Llobera A, Llinares-Tello E, Martí-Climent JM, Gámez-Cenzano C. Image quality evaluation in a modern PET system: impact of new reconstructions methods and a radiomics approach. Sci Rep 2019; 9 (01) 10640
- 11 Rezaei S, Ghafarian P, Bakhshayesh-Karam M. et al. The impact of iterative reconstruction protocol, signal-to-background ratio and background activity on measurement of PET spatial resolution. Jpn J Radiol 2020; 38 (03) 231-239
- 12 Rogasch JM, Steffen IG, Hofheinz F. et al. The association of tumor-to-background ratios and SUVmax deviations related to point spread function and time-of-flight F18-FDG-PET/CT reconstruction in colorectal liver metastases. EJNMMI Res 2015; 5 (01) 31
- 13 Chilcott AK, Bradley KM, McGowan DR. Effect of a Bayesian penalized likelihood PET reconstruction compared with ordered subset expectation maximization on clinical image quality over a wide range of patient weights. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018; 210 (01) 153-157
- 14 Kangai Y, Onishi H, Takigawa A. et al. [Evaluation of potentially influential factors for positron emission tomography image quality in liver signal-to-noise ratio utilizing a delivery 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose study on Bi4Ge3O12-positron emission tomography/computed tomography]. Nippon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 2014; 70 (08) 784-792
- 15 Mizuta T, Senda M, Okamura T. et al. NEC density and liver ROI S/N ratio for image quality control of whole-body FDG-PET scans: comparison with visual assessment. Mol Imaging Biol 2009; 11 (06) 480-486
- 16 Fukukita H, Senda M, Terauchi T. et al. Japanese guideline for the oncology FDG-PET/CT data acquisition protocol: synopsis of Version 1.0. Ann Nucl Med 2010; 24 (04) 325-334
- 17 Irie S, Hayashida N, Shinkawa T. et al. Clinical usefulness of 18F-FDG PET/CT for the screening of metabolic liver disorders. Life Sci J 2014; 11: 99-104
- 18 Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K. et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med 2012; 53 (11) 1716-1722
- 19 Yan J, Schaefferkoetter J, Conti M, Townsend D. A method to assess image quality for low-dose PET: analysis of SNR, CNR, bias and image noise. Cancer Imaging 2016; 16 (01) 1-12
- 20 Geismar JH, Stolzmann P, Sah B-R. et al. Intra-individual comparison of PET/CT with different body weight-adapted FDG dosage regimens. Acta Radiol Open 2015; 4 (02) 2047981614560076
- 21 Xiao J, Yu H, Sui X. et al. Can the BMI-based dose regimen be used to reduce injection activity and to obtain a constant image quality in oncological patients by 18F-FDG total-body PET/CT imaging?. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021; 49 (01) 269-278
- 22 Fendler WP, Eiber M, Beheshti M. et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT: Joint EANM and SNMMI procedure guideline for prostate cancer imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017; 44 (06) 1014-1024
- 23 Amakusa S, Matsuoka K, Kawano M. et al. Influence of region-of-interest determination on measurement of signal-to-noise ratio in liver on PET images. Ann Nucl Med 2018; 32 (01) 1-6
- 24 McDermott GM, Chowdhury FU, Scarsbrook AF. Evaluation of noise equivalent count parameters as indicators of adult whole-body FDG-PET image quality. Ann Nucl Med 2013; 27 (09) 855-861
- 25 Wielaard J, Habraken JBA, Brinks P, Lavalaye J, Boellaard R. Optimization of injected 68Ga-PSMA activity based on list-mode phantom data and clinical validation. EJNMMI Phys 2020; 7 (01) 20
- 26 Jahromi AH, Moradi F, Hoh CK. Glucose-corrected standardized uptake value (SUVgluc) is the most accurate SUV parameter for evaluation of pulmonary nodules. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019; 9 (05) 243-247
- 27 Ragab A, Wu J, Ding X. et al. 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT: the optimum standardized uptake value (SUV) internal reference. Acad Radiol 2022; 29 (01) 95-106
- 28 de Wit-van der Veen B, Vyas K, Tuch D, Grootendorst M, Stokkel M, Slump C. Performance evaluation of Cerenkov luminescence imaging: a comparison of 68Ga with 18F. EJNMMI Phys 2019; 6 (01) 1-13
- 29 Silosky M, Karki R, Chin BB. 68Ga and 18F quantification, and detectability of hot spots using an ACR Phantom: contributions of radionuclide physical differences to hot spot detectability. J Nucl Med 2019; 60 (Suppl. 01) 1200

