We have located links that may give you full text access.
O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET in gliomas: influence of data processing in different centres.
EJNMMI Research 2017 August 17
BACKGROUND: PET using O-(2-[(18)F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine ((18)F-FET) is an established method for brain tumour diagnostics, but data processing varies in different centres. This study analyses the influence of methodological differences between two centres for tumour characterization with (18)F-FET PET using the same PET scanner. Methodological differences between centres A and B in the evaluation of (18)F-FET PET data were identified for (1) framing of PET dynamic data, (2) data reconstruction, (3) cut-off values for tumour delineation to determine tumour-to-brain ratios (TBR) and tumour volume (Tvol) and (4) ROI definition to determine time activity curves (TACs) in the tumour. Based on the (18)F-FET PET data of 40 patients with untreated cerebral gliomas (20 WHO grade II, 10 WHO grade III, 10 WHO grade IV), the effect of different data processing in the two centres on TBRmean, TBRmax, Tvol, time-to-peak (TTP) and slope of the TAC was compared. Further, the effect on tumour grading was evaluated by ROC analysis.
RESULTS: Significant differences between centres A and B were found especially for TBRmax (2.84 ± 0.99 versus 3.34 ± 1.13; p < 0.001), Tvol (1.14 ± 1.28 versus 1.51 ± 1.44; p < 0.001) and TTP (22.4 ± 8.3 min versus 30.8 ± 6.3 min; p < 0.001) and minor differences for TBRmean and slope. Tumour grading was not influenced by different data processing.
CONCLUSIONS: Variable data processing of (18)F-FET PET in different centres leads to significant differences especially for TBRmax and Tvol. A standardization of data processing and evaluation is needed to make (18)F-FET PET comparable between different centres.
RESULTS: Significant differences between centres A and B were found especially for TBRmax (2.84 ± 0.99 versus 3.34 ± 1.13; p < 0.001), Tvol (1.14 ± 1.28 versus 1.51 ± 1.44; p < 0.001) and TTP (22.4 ± 8.3 min versus 30.8 ± 6.3 min; p < 0.001) and minor differences for TBRmean and slope. Tumour grading was not influenced by different data processing.
CONCLUSIONS: Variable data processing of (18)F-FET PET in different centres leads to significant differences especially for TBRmax and Tvol. A standardization of data processing and evaluation is needed to make (18)F-FET PET comparable between different centres.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app