High concordance of PET-CT treatment response evaluation according to PERCIST 1.0 when comparing images reconstructed with OSEM vs. BSREM

IF 1.3 4区医学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1111/cpf.12907

Tilda Skoglund, David Minarik, Lars Edenbrandt, Elin Trägårdh

{"title":"High concordance of PET-CT treatment response evaluation according to PERCIST 1.0 when comparing images reconstructed with OSEM vs. BSREM","authors":"Tilda Skoglund, David Minarik, Lars Edenbrandt, Elin Trägårdh","doi":"10.1111/cpf.12907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Positron emission tomography (PET) response criteria in solid tumours (PERCIST 1.0) is a systematic assessment of therapy response with fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([<sup>18</sup>F]FDG) PET. The ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) and block sequential regularized expectation maximization (BSREM) reconstruction algorithms are both commonly used. The impact of using OSEM or BSREM on PERCIST 1.0 is not fully determined. This study aimed to compare treatment response evaluation between the reconstructions OSEM and BSREM according to PERCIST 1.0.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The highest peak standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass (SUL<sub>peak</sub>) in a lesion were measured in PET-CT scans from 90 patients with metastatic breast cancer or malignant melanoma, who had undergone two [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET with computer tomography (CT) scans for treatment evaluation purpose. SUL measurements in the reference organ were also calculated. All scans were reconstructed with OSEM and BSREM. Bland Altman plots and Spearman correlation coefficient were used for comparing measurements obtained from OSEM and BSREM images. Patients were categorized as a complete metabolic response (CMR), partial metabolic response (PMR), stable metabolic disease (SMD), or progressive metabolic disease (PMD).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The mean standard deviation (SD) of SUL<sub>mean</sub> in the reference organ was slightly lower for BSREM images, resulting in a slightly lower threshold. Lesion SUL<sub>peak</sub> was slightly higher for BSREM images compared with OSEM images. Only 5 out of 90 patients had different response evaluations for the different reconstructions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>PERCIST 1.0 serves as a robust response evaluation criterion and is only marginally dependent on the reconstruction used.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10504,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cpf.12907","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cpf.12907","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Positron emission tomography (PET) response criteria in solid tumours (PERCIST 1.0) is a systematic assessment of therapy response with fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([¹⁸F]FDG) PET. The ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) and block sequential regularized expectation maximization (BSREM) reconstruction algorithms are both commonly used. The impact of using OSEM or BSREM on PERCIST 1.0 is not fully determined. This study aimed to compare treatment response evaluation between the reconstructions OSEM and BSREM according to PERCIST 1.0.

Methods

The highest peak standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass (SUL_peak) in a lesion were measured in PET-CT scans from 90 patients with metastatic breast cancer or malignant melanoma, who had undergone two [¹⁸F]FDG PET with computer tomography (CT) scans for treatment evaluation purpose. SUL measurements in the reference organ were also calculated. All scans were reconstructed with OSEM and BSREM. Bland Altman plots and Spearman correlation coefficient were used for comparing measurements obtained from OSEM and BSREM images. Patients were categorized as a complete metabolic response (CMR), partial metabolic response (PMR), stable metabolic disease (SMD), or progressive metabolic disease (PMD).

Results

The mean standard deviation (SD) of SUL_mean in the reference organ was slightly lower for BSREM images, resulting in a slightly lower threshold. Lesion SUL_peak was slightly higher for BSREM images compared with OSEM images. Only 5 out of 90 patients had different response evaluations for the different reconstructions.

Conclusion

PERCIST 1.0 serves as a robust response evaluation criterion and is only marginally dependent on the reconstruction used.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

对比OSEM和BSREM重建的图像，根据PERCIST 1.0评价PET-CT治疗反应的一致性高。

背景：实体肿瘤正电子发射断层扫描（PET）反应标准（PERCIST 1.0）是对氟- 18氟脱氧葡萄糖（[18F]FDG） PET治疗反应的系统评估。有序子集期望最大化重构算法（OSEM）和块顺序正则化期望最大化重构算法（BSREM）都是常用的重构算法。使用OSEM或BSREM对PERCIST 1.0的影响尚未完全确定。本研究旨在比较重建OSEM和重建BSREM的治疗反应评价。方法：对90例转移性乳腺癌或恶性黑色素瘤患者进行了两次[18F]FDG PET和计算机断层扫描（CT），以评估治疗效果，并在PET-CT扫描中测量病变中经瘦体重校正的最高标准化摄取值（SULpeak）。还计算了参考器官的SUL测量值。所有扫描都用OSEM和BSREM重建。使用Bland Altman图和Spearman相关系数比较OSEM和BSREM图像的测量结果。患者被分类为完全代谢反应（CMR）、部分代谢反应（PMR）、稳定代谢疾病（SMD）或进行性代谢疾病（PMD）。结果：BSREM图像的参比器官SULmean的平均标准偏差（SD）略低，导致阈值略低。与OSEM图像相比，BSREM图像的病变SULpeak略高。90例患者中只有5例对不同的重建有不同的反应评价。结论：PERCIST 1.0可作为一个可靠的反应评价标准，仅与所使用的重建有轻微的关系。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging 医学-生理学

CiteScore

3.40

自引率

5.60%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging publishes reports on clinical and experimental research pertinent to human physiology in health and disease. The scope of the Journal is very broad, covering all aspects of the regulatory system in the cardiovascular, renal and pulmonary systems with special emphasis on methodological aspects. The focus for the journal is, however, work that has potential clinical relevance. The Journal also features review articles on recent front-line research within these fields of interest. Covered by the major abstracting services including Current Contents and Science Citation Index, Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging plays an important role in providing effective and productive communication among clinical physiologists world-wide.