» Articles » PMID: 33875730

Usefulness of Semi-automatic Harmonization Strategy of Standardized Uptake Values for Multicenter PET Studies

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2021 Apr 20
PMID 33875730
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study assessed the possibility of semi-automatic harmonization of standardized uptake values (SUVs) in multicenter studies. Phantom data were acquired using 16 PET/CT scanners (including 3 PET/CT scanners with a silicon photomultiplier detector). PET images obtained using 30-min/bed scans for optimum harmonization filter calculations and using 90-180-s/bed scans for SUV validation under clinical conditions were obtained. Time of flight and a reconstruction method with point-spread function correction were allowed. The optimal full width at half maximum of the 3D-Gaussian filter that minimizes the root mean square error with the median value of the JSNM harmonization range was calculated semi-automatically. The SUVmax and the SUVpeak of the hot spheres were measured, and the inter-scanner coefficient of variation (COV) was calculated before and after harmonization. The harmonization filter was applied to 11 of the 15 PET/CT scanners in which the SUV calibration accuracy had been verified, but not in the remaining 4 scanners. Under noiseless conditions before harmonization, the inter-scanner COVs of the SUVmax and the SUVpeak were as high as 21.57% and 12.20%, respectively, decreasing to 8.79% and 5.73% after harmonization, respectively. Harmonization brought the SUVmax of all the hot spheres to within the harmonization range. Even under clinical conditions affected by image noise, the inter-scanner COVs for the SUVmax and SUVpeak were as high as 8.83% and 5.18% after harmonization, respectively. By applying an optimal harmonization filter that is calculated semi-automatically, the harmonization of SUVs according to the JSNM strategy is possible in multicenter studies, thereby reducing inter-scanner COVs.

Citing Articles

Proposal for novel definition of radiologically less-invasive clinical stage IA solid predominant lung adenocarcinoma using the maximum standardized uptake value.

Watanabe Y, Hattori A, Fukui M, Matsunaga T, Takamochi K, Suzuki K Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2025; .

PMID: 39760913 DOI: 10.1007/s11748-024-02115-w.


Prognostic value of combining clinical factors, F-FDG PET-based intensity, volumetric features, and deep learning predictor in patients with EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma undergoing targeted therapies: a cross-scanner and temporal validation study.

Lue K, Chen Y, Chu S, Lin C, Wang T, Liu S Ann Nucl Med. 2024; 38(8):647-658.

PMID: 38704786 DOI: 10.1007/s12149-024-01936-2.


Characterisation of a novel [F]FDG brain PET database and combination with a second database for optimising detection of focal abnormalities, using focal cortical dysplasia as an example.

Jin S, Merida I, Stavropoulos I, Elwes R, Lam T, Guedj E EJNMMI Res. 2023; 13(1):98.

PMID: 37964137 PMC: 10645721. DOI: 10.1186/s13550-023-01023-z.


Prognostic significance of the harmonized maximum standardized uptake value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with resectable oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter study.

Kaida H, Kitajima K, Sekine T, Ito K, Daisaki H, Kimura T Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2023; 52(7):20230083.

PMID: 37494001 PMC: 10552130. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20230083.


Prognostic role of preoperative fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography with an image-based harmonization technique: A multicenter retrospective study.

Hamada A, Kitajima K, Suda K, Koga T, Soh J, Kaida H JTCVS Open. 2023; 14:502-522.

PMID: 37425462 PMC: 10328817. DOI: 10.1016/j.xjon.2023.02.004.


References
1.
Quak E, Le Roux P, Hofman M, Robin P, Bourhis D, Callahan J . Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42(13):2072-82. PMC: 4623085. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0. View

2.
Fukukita H, Suzuki K, Matsumoto K, Terauchi T, Daisaki H, Ikari Y . Japanese guideline for the oncology FDG-PET/CT data acquisition protocol: synopsis of Version 2.0. Ann Nucl Med. 2014; 28(7):693-705. PMC: 4332454. DOI: 10.1007/s12149-014-0849-2. View

3.
Quak E, Le Roux P, Lasnon C, Robin P, Hofman M, Bourhis D . Does PET SUV Harmonization Affect PERCIST Response Classification?. J Nucl Med. 2016; 57(11):1699-1706. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.171983. View

4.
Kaalep A, Burggraaff C, Pieplenbosch S, Verwer E, Sera T, Zijlstra J . Quantitative implications of the updated EARL 2019 PET-CT performance standards. EJNMMI Phys. 2019; 6(1):28. PMC: 6933045. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-019-0257-8. View

5.
Kaalep A, Sera T, Rijnsdorp S, Yaqub M, Talsma A, Lodge M . Feasibility of state of the art PET/CT systems performance harmonisation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018; 45(8):1344-1361. PMC: 5993859. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-018-3977-4. View