DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/CT Image Distortion by NEMA IEC Body Phantom

NEMA IEC Body Phantom을 이용한 18F-FDG PET/CT 영상의 왜곡 평가

  • Park, jooncheol (Dept. of Radiological Technology, Anshan University) ;
  • Yang, hanjoon (Dept. of International Radiological Sciences, Hallym University of Graduate Studies)
  • 박준철 (안산대학교 방사선과) ;
  • 양한준 (한림국제대학원대학교 국제방사선학과)
  • Received : 2013.09.06
  • Accepted : 2013.12.10
  • Published : 2013.12.31

Abstract

Recently, 18F-FDG PET based CT scan was a critical examination that the after, before plan diagnosis and treatment of tumors. But, due to the distortion of SUV that should be proportional to the metabolic rate of glucose in the tumor, the other measurement methods are being on study. In this study, compared the degree of distortion of SUV that according to the volume of the tumor analysis ROI and VOI using the NEMA IEC Phantom. The results, the SUVmax, mean value are rapidly decreased with threshold value 500 mm2 interval of the ROI analysis, 1500 mm3 interval of the VOI analysis. When compared SUVmax value SUVmean, ROI and VOI analysis VOI measurements was 1.077 times higher SUVmax was 0.981 times highe compared to the value of the ROI measurement. Compare MTV, SUV 2.0 as measured by the volume of the VOI to Volume showed a slightly higher results(Volume / MTV = $93.4 %{\pm}14.8 %$). Considering the above results, Tumor evaluation by 18F-FDG PET / CT scan Consider each threshold value should be analyzed due to larger SUV's Distortion depending on the size of the tumor. VOI analysis is recommended. because it showed the VOI analysis is higher than the ROI analysis SUVmax and lower SUVmean due to VOI analysis than once as a measure of the wider area as measured ROI analysis. MTV (R2 = 0.999), a result close to the actual size of the tumor. but, more research is needed in this regard, because SUV according to the standards of value are affected.

Keywords

References

  1. Ko Chang Soon, (2008), "Neuclear Medicine." Korea med publish, 3th:81
  2. Lee Myeong Cheol (2002) "Status and Prospects by PET.", KNucl Med, 36(1), 1-7,
  3. Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M, Schelbert H.R, (2007), "Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006.", JNucl Med, 48:78S-88,
  4. Weber W.A, (2006), "Positron emission tomog raphy as animaging biomarker.", J Clin Oncology, 24(20), 3282-92, https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.06.6068
  5. Sampson C.B, (1999), "Textbook of Radiopharmacy theory and practice 3rded, Netherlands.", Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, chapter31,
  6. Marine Soret, Stephen L, Bacharach, Ir'ene Buva, (2007), "Partial-Volume Effect in PET Tumor Imaging.", JNucl Med, 48, 932-945, https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.106.035774
  7. Judenhofer, Martin S. Wiehr, Stefan Kukuk, Damaris Fischer, (2011), "Guidelines for Nuclear Image Analysis, University of Tubingen.", Chapter: 26.
  8. Philips, (2008), "PET and CT SPEC.", GEMINI TF16 Catalogue
  9. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), Washington, D.C. (2001), "NEMA Standards Publication No.", NU2