Search

Background: In oncology, lesion characterization is essential for tumor grading, treatment planning, and follow-up of cancer patients. Hybrid imaging systems, such as Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT)/CT, Positron Emission Tomography (PET)/CT, or PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), play an essential role for the noninvasive quantification of tumor characteristics. However, most of the existing approaches are challenged by intra- and intertumor heterogeneity. Novel quantitative imaging parameters that can be derived from textural feature analysis (as part of radiomics) are promising complements for improved characterization of tumor heterogeneity, thus, supporting clinically relevant implementations of personalized medicine concepts. Nevertheless, establishing new quantitative parameters for tumor characterization requires the use of standardized imaging objects to test the reliability of results prior to their implementation in patient studies., Methods: In this review, we summarize existing reports on heterogeneous phantoms with a focus on simulating tumor heterogeneity. We discuss the techniques, materials, advantages, and limitations of the existing phantoms for PET, CT, and MR imaging modalities., Conclusions: Finally, we outline the future directions and requirements for the design of cross modality imaging phantoms., (© 2020 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: PET/MRI has recently been introduced into clinical practice. We prospectively investigated the clinical impact of PET/MRI compared with PET/CT, in a mixed population of cancer patients, and performed an economic evaluation of PET/MRI., Methods: Cancer patients referred for routine staging or follow-up by PET/CT underwent consecutive PET/CT and PET/MRI, using single applications of [ 18 F]FDG, [ 68 Ga]Ga-DOTANOC, or [ 18 F]FDOPA, depending on tumor histology. PET/MRI and PET/CT were rated separately, and lesions were assessed per anatomic region; based on regions, per-examination and per-patient accuracies were determined. A simulated, multidisciplinary team meeting served as reference standard and determined whether differences between PET/CT and PET/MRI affected patient management. The McNemar tests were used to compare accuracies, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for PET/MRI were calculated., Results: Two hundred sixty-three patients (330 same-day PET/CT and PET/MRI examinations) were included. PET/MRI was accurate in 319/330 examinations and PET/CT in 277/330 examinations; the respective accuracies of 97.3% and 83.9% differed significantly (P < 0.001). The additional findings on PET/MRI-mainly liver and brain metastases-had implications for patient management in 21/263 patients (8.0%). The per-examination cost was 596.97 EUR for PET/MRI and 405.95 EUR for PET/CT. ICERs for PET/MRI were 14.26 EUR per percent of diagnostic accuracy and 23.88 EUR per percent of correctly managed patients., Conclusions: PET/MRI enables more appropriate management than PET/CT in a nonnegligible fraction of cancer patients. Since the per-examination cost is about 50% higher for PET/MRI than for PET/CT, a histology-based triage of patients to either PET/MRI or PET/CT may be meaningful.

Hybrid PET/MR offers new opportunities in radiation oncology for tissue/tumour characterisation and response assessment. Attenuation correction (AC) is an important issue especially in the presence of immobilization devices and flat table tops (FTT). The goal of this study was to compare two methods of AC using CT- and 68 Ge/ 68 Ga transmission scan-based attenuation maps (μ-maps) for a custom-designed FTT. Measurements were performed in the mMR PET/MR and TrueV PET/CT Biograph Siemens scanners with three different phantoms, namely the Siemens MR-QA, a cubic canister and the NEMA IEC body phantom. The study revealed that the MR image quality is not hampered by the presence of the FTT. For cubic canister applying the scanner's inherent AC alone resulted in inaccuracies in PET images, with up to -4.0% underestimation of the activity. The mean NEMA sphere activity measurements without FTT, agreed within 3.5% with the respective inserted activity. Placing the FTT in the PET/MR scanner resulted in a difference to the injected activity of 4.5% when the table was not corrected for. By introducing the μ-maps the discrepancy between the used activity and the measurements decreased down to 2.6%. To improve the AC of the FTT the creation of a dedicated μ-map was necessary while the CT-based μ-map performed equally good as the source transmission scan-based one., (Copyright © 2019 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To assess if tumour grading based on dynamic [18F]FET positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) studies is affected by different MRI-based attenuation correction (AC) methods., Methods: Twenty-four patients with suspected brain tumours underwent dynamic [18F]FET-PET/MRI examinations and subsequent low-dose computed tomography (CT) scans of the head. The dynamic PET data was reconstructed using the following AC methods: standard Dixon-based AC and ultra-short echo time MRI-based AC (MR-AC) and a model-based AC approach. All data were reconstructed also using CT-based AC (reference). For all lesions and reconstructions, time-activity curves (TACs) and time to peak (TTP) were extracted using different region-of-interest (ROI) and volume-of-interest (VOI) definitions. According to the most common evaluation approaches, TACs were categorised into two or three distinct curve patterns. Changes in TTP and TAC patterns compared to PET using CT-based AC were reported., Results: In the majority of cases, TAC patterns did not change. However, TAC pattern changes as well as changes in TTP were observed in up to 8% and 17% of the cases when using different MR-AC methods and ROI/VOI definitions, respectively. However, these changes in TTP and TAC pattern were attributed to different delineations of the ROIs/VOIs in PET corrected with different AC methods., Conclusion: PET/MRI using different MR-AC methods can be used for the assessment of TAC patterns in dynamic [18F]FET studies, as long as a meaningful delineation of the area of interest within the tumour is ensured., Key Points: • PET/MRI using different MR-AC methods can be used for dynamic [18F]FET studies. • A meaningful segmentation of the area of interest needs to be ensured, mandating a visual validation of the delineation by an experienced reader.

Aim: To gather information on clinical operations, quality control (QC) standards and adoption of guidelines for FDG-PET/CT imaging in Austrian PET/CT centres., Methods: A written survey composed of 68 questions related to A) PET/CT centre and installation, B) standard protocol parameters for FDG-PET/CT imaging of oncology patients, and C) standard QC procedures was conducted between November and December 2013 among all Austrian PET/CT centres. In addition, a NEMA-NU2 2012 image quality phantom test was performed using standard whole-body imaging settings on all PET/CT systems with a lesion-to-background ratio of 4. Recovery coefficients (RC) were calculated for each lesion and PET/CT system., Results: A) 13 PET/CT systems were installed in 12 nuclear medicine departments at public hospitals. B) Average fasting prior to FDG-PET/CT was 7.6 (4-12) h. All sites measured blood glucose levels while using different cut-off levels (64%: 150 mg/dl). Weight-based activity injection was performed at 83% sites with a mean FDG activity of 4.1 MBq/kg. Average FDG uptake time was 55 (45-75) min. All sites employed CT contrast agents (variation from 1%-95% of the patients). All sites reported SUV-max. C) Frequency of QC tests varied significantly and QC phantom measurements revealed significant differences in RCs., Conclusion: Significant variations in FDG-PET/CT protocol parameters among all Austrian PET/CT users were observed. Subsequently, efforts need to be put in place to further standardize imaging protocols. At a minimum clinical PET/CT operations should ensure compliance with existing guidelines. Further, standardized QC procedures must be followed to improve quantitative accuracy across PET/CT centres.