Purpose: The quantitative assessment of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans using standardized uptake value and derived parameters proved to be superior to traditional qualitative assessment in several retrospective or mono-centric prospective reports. Since different scanners give different quantitative readings, a program for clinical trial qualification (CTQ) is mandatory to guarantee a reliable and reproducible use of quantitative PET in prospective multi-centre clinical trials and in every-day clinical life. Methods: We set up, under the auspices of Italian Foundation on Lymphoma (FIL), a CTQ program consisting of the PET/CT scan acquisition and analysis of 18F and 68Ge NEMA/IEC image quality phantoms for the reduction of inter-scanner variability. Variability was estimated on background activity concentration (BAC) and sphere to background ratio (SBR). Results: The use of a 68Ge phantom allowed reducing the inter-scanner variability among different scanners from 74.0% to 20.5% in BAC and from 63.3% to 17.4% in SBR compared to using the 18F phantom. The CTQ criteria were fulfilled at first round in 100% and 28% of PET scanners with 68Ge and 18F respectively. Conclusions: The 68Ge phantom proved a reliable tool for PET scanner qualification, able to significantly reduce the potential sources of error while increasing the reproducibility of PET derived quantitative parameter measurement.

The 68Ge phantom-based FDG-PET site qualification program for clinical trials adopted by FIL (Italian Foundation on Lymphoma) / Chauvie, Stephane; Bergesio, Fabrizio; Fioroni, Federica; Brambilla, Marco; Biggi, Alberto; Versari, Annibale; Guerra, Luca; Storto, Giovanni; Musto, Pellegrino; Luminari, Stefano; Cabras, Maria G.; Balzarotti, Monica; Rigacci, Luigi; Martelli, Maurizio; Vitolo, Umberto; Federico, Massimo; Gallamini, Andrea. - In: PHYSICA MEDICA. - ISSN 1120-1797. - STAMPA. - 32:5(2016), pp. 651-656. [10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.04.004]

The 68Ge phantom-based FDG-PET site qualification program for clinical trials adopted by FIL (Italian Foundation on Lymphoma)

MARTELLI, Maurizio;
2016

Abstract

Purpose: The quantitative assessment of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans using standardized uptake value and derived parameters proved to be superior to traditional qualitative assessment in several retrospective or mono-centric prospective reports. Since different scanners give different quantitative readings, a program for clinical trial qualification (CTQ) is mandatory to guarantee a reliable and reproducible use of quantitative PET in prospective multi-centre clinical trials and in every-day clinical life. Methods: We set up, under the auspices of Italian Foundation on Lymphoma (FIL), a CTQ program consisting of the PET/CT scan acquisition and analysis of 18F and 68Ge NEMA/IEC image quality phantoms for the reduction of inter-scanner variability. Variability was estimated on background activity concentration (BAC) and sphere to background ratio (SBR). Results: The use of a 68Ge phantom allowed reducing the inter-scanner variability among different scanners from 74.0% to 20.5% in BAC and from 63.3% to 17.4% in SBR compared to using the 18F phantom. The CTQ criteria were fulfilled at first round in 100% and 28% of PET scanners with 68Ge and 18F respectively. Conclusions: The 68Ge phantom proved a reliable tool for PET scanner qualification, able to significantly reduce the potential sources of error while increasing the reproducibility of PET derived quantitative parameter measurement.
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Chauvie_68Ge-phantom-based_2016.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print (versione successiva alla peer review e accettata per la pubblicazione)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 657.73 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
657.73 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri PDF

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/932453
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 5
  • Scopus 13
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 14
social impact