[en] The aim of this study was to evaluate image quality and lesion detectability with and without attenuation correction in patients with abdominal tumors, using a free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) methodology. Thirty-four patients with various abdominal tumors were evaluated (11 men, 23 women, median age 48 years). Whole-body emission scans were performed 68 min (35-102 min) after intravenous injection of 4.3 MBq/kg fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Images were reconstructed using the OS-EM algorithm and corrected for attenuation either using postinjection singles transmission (n=27) or by calculation and body outline (n=7). Total scan duration did not exceed 70 min. Studies were read independently by four observers unaware of any clinical data. The uncorrected (UC) images were systematically read before the attenuation-corrected (AC) images. All studies were given an image quality score ranging from 1 (unreadable) to 5 (excellent). Each focus of increased activity was then localized and given a probability of malignancy using a five-point scale. The average image quality score was similar for both UC and AC images. At the time of the positron emission tomography (PET) scans, 127 lesions (63 liver metastases, 9 retroperitoneal lesions, 50 peritoneal or bowel lesions, and 5 pancreatic carcinomas) were revealed by pathological or correlative studies. The areas under the FROC curves were consistently greater for AC images (range 0.8663-0.8867) than for UC images (range 0.7774 -0.8613). Overall, the difference between the AC images and the UC images was significant (P=0.019). In particular, correction for attenuation increased the sensitivity regardless of the location of the lesions. In conclusion, correction for attenuation significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET for abdominal staging of neoplasms, without impairing the image quality.
Disciplines :
Radiology, nuclear medicine & imaging Oncology
Author, co-author :
Hustinx, Roland ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques > Médecine nucléaire
Dolin, R. J.
Benard, F.
Bhatnagar, A.
Chakraborty, D.
Smith, R. J.
Jang, S.
Alavi, A.
Language :
English
Title :
Impact of attenuation correction on the accuracy of FDG-PET in patients with abdominal tumors: a free-response ROC analysis.
Rigo P., Paulus P., Kaschten B.J. (1996) Oncological applications of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. Eur J Nucl Med 23:1641-1674.
Delbeke D. (1999) Oncological applications of FDG PET imaging: Brain tumors, colorectal cancer, lymphoma and melanoma. J Nucl Med 40:591-603.
Delbeke D. (1999) Oncological applications of FDG PET imaging. J Nucl Med 40:1706-1715.
Links J.M. (1998) Advances in nuclear medicine instrumentation: Considerations in the design and selection of an imaging system. Eur J Nuc Med 25:1453-1466.
Lonneux M., Borbath I., Bol A. (1999) Attenuation correction in whole-body FDG oncological studies: The role of statistical reconstruction. Eur J Nucl Med 26:591-598.
Bedigian M.P., Benard F., Smith R.J. (1998) Whole-body positron emission tomography for oncology imaging using singles transmission scanning with segmentation and ordered subsets-expectation maximization (OS-EM) reconstruction. Eur J Nucl Med 25:659-661.
Imran M.B., Kubota K., Yamada S. (1998) Lesion-to-background ratio in nonattenuation-corrected whole-body FDG PET images. J Nucl Med 39:1219-1223.
Kotzerke J., Guhlmann A., Moog F. (1999) Role of attenuation correction for fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the primary staging of malignant lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med 26:31-38.
Bleckman C., Dose J., Bohuslaviski K.H. (1999) Effect of attenuation correction on lesion detectability in FDG PET of breast cancer. J Nucl Med 40:2021-2024.
Smith R.J., Karp J.S., Muehllehner G. (1997) Singles transmission scans performed post-injection for quantitative whole body PET imaging. Trans Nucl Sci 44:1329-1335.
Karp J.S., Muehllehner G., Qu H. (1995) Singles transmission in volume-imaging PET with a137Cs source. Phys Med Biol 40:929-944.
Smith R.J., Karp J.S., Benard F. (1998) A comparison of segmentation and emission subtraction for singles transmission in PET. Trans Nucl Sci 43:1212-1218.
Hudson H.M., Larkin R.S. (1994) Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imag 13:601-609.
Meikle S.R., Hutton B.F., Bailey D.L. (1994) Accelerated EM reconstruction in total body PET: Potential for improving tumor detectability. Phys Med Biol 39:1689-1704.
Chakraborty D.P., Winter L.H. (1990) Free-response methodology: Alternate analysis and a new observer-performance experiment. Radiology 174:873-881.
Chakraborty D.P. (1989) Maximum likelihood analysis of free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) data. Med Phys 16:561-568.
Wahl R.L. (1999) To AC or not AC: That is the question. J Nucl Med 40:2025-2028.
Bengel F.M., Ziegler S.I., Avril N. (1997) Whole-body positron emission tomography in clinical oncology: Comparison between attenuation-corrected and uncorrected images. Eur J Nucl Med 24:1091-1098.
Farquhar T.H., Llacer J., Hoh C.K. (1999) ROC and localization ROC analyses of lesion detection in whole-body FDG PET: Effects of acquisition mode, attenuation correction and reconstruction algorithm. J Nucl Med 40:2043-2052.
Meikle S.R., Dahlbom M., Cherry S.R. (1993) Attenuation correction using count-limited transmission data in positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med 34:143-150.
Karp J.S., Muehllehner G., Mankof F.D. (1990) Continuous-slice PENN-PET: A positron tomograph with volume imaging capability. J Nucl Med 31:617-627.
Benard F., Smith R.J., Hustinx R. (1999) Clinical evaluation of processing techniques for attenuation correction with137Cs in whole-body PET imaging. J Nucl Med 40:1257-1263.
Xu L., Luk W.K. (1994) Local threshold for segmented attenuation correction of PET imaging of the thorax. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 41:1532-1537.
Shreve P.D., Steventon R.S., Deters E.C. (1998) Oncologic diagnosis with 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose imaging: Dual-head coincidence gamma camera versus positron emission tomographic scanner. Radiology 207:431-437.