A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Treatment response assessment in [F]FDG-PET/CT oncology scans: Impact of count statistics variation and reconstruction protocol. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: To investigate influences of reconstruction algorithms and count statistics variation on quantification and treatment response assessment in cancer patients, by using a large field of view-FOV scanner.

Methods: 54 cancer patients underwent PET/CT scan: 1) at baseline: 1.5 min/FOV, reconstructed by ordered-subset expectation maximization + point-spread-function-OSEM-PSF and bayesian penalised-likelihood-BPL algorithm 2) at restaging: 2 min/FOV, reconstructed also at 1.5 and 1 min/FOV, using OSEM-PSF and BPL. SUL (lean-body mass SUV) peak and max were measured for each target-lesion (n = 59). Differences in quantification obtained from datasets with different reconstruction algorithms and different time/FOV were evaluated. For any pair of PET datasets, metabolic response was assessed by using SULpeak, with a threshold of 30% in variation considered as significant.

Results: Both at baseline and restaging, SULpeak and max values were higher in BPL reconstructions than in OSEM-PSF (p < 0.0001). SULpeak at different time/FOV reconstructions showed no statistically significant differences both with OSEM-PSF and BPL; SULmax depended on acquisition time (p < 0.05). In 56/59 lesions (95%) therapy response was concordant regardless count statistics variation and reconstruction algorithm; 2/59 (3%) showed different responses according to count statistics, both for OSEM-PSF and BPL; in 1/59 lesion (2%) response was different depending on reconstruction algorithm used.

Conclusions: BPL provided higher SULpeak and max than OSEM-PSF. With a large FOV/high sensitivity scanner, variation of time/FOV in restaging PET scans gave stable and reproducible results in terms of SULpeak, both for OSEM-PSF and BPL. Thus, metabolic response defined by SULpeak variation proved to be quite independent from count statistics.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.12.038DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

treatment response
8
response assessment
8
count statistics
8
statistics variation
8
reconstruction algorithms
8
cancer patients
8
assessment [f]fdg-pet/ct
4
[f]fdg-pet/ct oncology
4
oncology scans
4
scans impact
4

Similar Publications