Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 236  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 45-51

Tumor volume delineation: A pilot study comparing a digital positron-emission tomography prototype with an analog positron-emission tomography system


1 Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
2 Department of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Nghi C Nguyen
Department of Radiology, UPMC Presbyterian, 200 Lothrop Street East Wing, Suite 200, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
USA
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/wjnm.WJNM_22_18

PMID: 30774546

Rights and Permissions

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 mm3 at 35% SUV and − 835.3 mm3 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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed587    
    Printed34    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded88    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal