Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · World J Nucl Med 2023; 22(03): 196-202
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1771284
Original Article

Optimization of the Acquisition Time and Injected Dose of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Based on Patient Specifications for High-Sensitive Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Scanner

Murtadha Al-Fatlawi
1   Radiological Techniques Department, AL-Mustaqbal University College, Babel, Iraq
,
Farideh Pak
2   Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, United States
,
Saeed Farzanefar
3   Department of Nuclear Medicine, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Yalda Salehi
3   Department of Nuclear Medicine, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Abbas Monsef
4   Department of Radiology, Center for Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, United States
5   Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, United States
,
Peyman Sheikhzadeh 
3   Department of Nuclear Medicine, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported under grant number 54439, Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract:

Background This study was aimed to optimize the fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-administered dose and scan time based on patient specifications using a highly sensitive five-ring bismuth germanium oxide (BGO)-based positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scanner (Discovery IQ).

Methods We retrospectively analyzed 101 whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT images. Patient data were reconstructed using ordered subset expectation maximization with resolution recovery algorithms (OSEM + SharpIR). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was calculated for each patient, standardized to SNRnorm, and plotted against three body index parameters (weight, body mass index, and lean body mass). Two professional physicians blindly examined image quality at different patient time per bed positions to determine the minimum acceptable quality. To select images of acceptable quality, the noise index parameter was also measured. A new dose-time product (DTP) was established for each patient, and a predicted injected dose was assumed.

Results We found an almost linear association between patient weight and normalized SNR, and patient weight had the highest R2 in the fitting. The redesigned DTP can reduce results by approximately 74 and 38% compared with ordinary DTP for 80- and 160-s scan durations. The new dose regimen formula was found to be DTP = c/t × m 1.24, where m is the patient weight, t is the scan time per bed position, and c is 1.8 and 4.3 for acceptable and higher confidence states, respectively, in Discovery IQ PET/CT.

Conclusion Patient weight is the best clinical parameter for the implementation of 18F-FDG PET/CT image quality assessment. A new dose-time regimen based on body weight was proposed for use in highly sensitive five-ring BGO PET-CT scanners to significantly reduce the injection dose and scan times while maintaining sufficient image quality for diagnosis.

Keywords

dose optimization - BGO-based positron-emission tomography - dependency - reconstruction algorithm

Ethics Approval

The anonymized patient's data were used in this study which was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of School of Public Health and Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (Approval code: IR.TUMS.SPH.REC.1400.205)


Availability of Data

All the datasets used and analyzed during this study are available with the corresponding author upon reasonable request.




Publication History

Article published online:
06 September 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Avril NE, Weber WA. Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET. Radiol Clin North Am 2005; 43 (01) 189-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP. et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 2008; 49 (03) 480-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Larson SM, Schwartz LH. 18F-FDG PET as a candidate for “qualified biomarker”: functional assessment of treatment response in oncology. J Nucl Med 2006; 47 (06) 901-903
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med 2005; 46 (06) 983-995
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rosen EL, Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. FDG PET, PET/CT, and breast cancer imaging. Radiographics 2007; 27 (Suppl 1): S215-S229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ. et al; European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015; 42 (02) 328-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ. et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med 2006; 47 (05) 885-895
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dziuk M, Witkowska-Patena E, Giżewska A, Mazurek A, Pieczonka A, Koza M, Gerszewska M, Podgajny Z, Chojnowska M. . Determining the optimal dose of 18F-FDG for Hodgkin lymphoma imaging on PET/CT camera with BGO crystals. 2020. Doi: DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-89841/v1
    Crossref
  • 9 Niederkohr RD, Hayden SP, Hamill JJ, Jones JP, Schaefferkoetter JD, Chiu E. Reproducibility of FDG PET/CT image-based cancer staging and standardized uptake values with simulated reduction of injected FDG dose or acquisition time. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021; 11 (05) 428-442
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wickham F, McMeekin H, Burniston M. et al. Patient-specific optimisation of administered activity and acquisition times for 18F-FDG PET imaging. EJNMMI Res 2017; 7 (01) 3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lantos J, Mittra ES, Levin CS, Iagaru A. Standard OSEM vs. regularized PET image reconstruction: qualitative and quantitative comparison using phantom data and various clinical radiopharmaceuticals. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 8 (02) 110-118
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tarantola G, Zito F, Gerundini P. PET instrumentation and reconstruction algorithms in whole-body applications. J Nucl Med 2003; 44 (05) 756-769
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Berg E, Cherry SR. . Innovations in Instrumentation for Positron Emission Tomography, Seminars in Nuclear Medicine. Elsevier; 2018:311–331.
  • 14 Slomka PJ, Pan T, Germano G. . Recent advances and future progress in PET instrumentation, Seminars in nuclear medicine. Elsevier; 2016:5–19.
  • 15 Monsef A, Ay MR, Sheikhzadeh P, Geramifar P, Rahmim A, Ghafarian P. Harmonization based on quantitative analysis of standardized uptake value variations across PET/CT scanners: a multicenter phantom study. Nucl Med Commun 2022; 43 (09) 1004-1014
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Reynés-Llompart G, Gámez-Cenzano C, Romero-Zayas I, Rodríguez-Bel L, Vercher-Conejero JL, Martí-Climent JM. Performance characteristics of the whole-body discovery IQ PET/CT system. J Nucl Med 2017; 58 (07) 1155-1161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hume R, Weyers E. Relationship between total body water and surface area in normal and obese subjects. J Clin Pathol 1971; 24 (03) 234-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Koopman D, van Osch JA, Jager PL. et al. Technical note: how to determine the FDG activity for tumour PET imaging that satisfies European guidelines. EJNMMI Phys 2016; 3 (01) 22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Prieto E, García-Velloso MJ, Rodríguez-Fraile M. et al. Significant dose reduction is feasible in FDG PET/CT protocols without compromising diagnostic quality. Phys Med 2018; 46: 134-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 de Groot EH, Post N, Boellaard R, Wagenaar NR, Willemsen AT, van Dalen JA. Optimized dose regimen for whole-body FDG-PET imaging. EJNMMI Res 2013; 3 (01) 63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Everaert H, Vanhove C, Lahoutte T. et al. Optimal dose of 18F-FDG required for whole-body PET using an LSO PET camera. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30 (12) 1615-1619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Auerbach MA. et al. Optimizing imaging protocols for overweight and obese patients: a lutetium orthosilicate PET/CT study. J Nucl Med 2005; 46 (04) 603-607
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Masuda Y, Kondo C, Matsuo Y, Uetani M, Kusakabe K. Comparison of imaging protocols for 18F-FDG PET/CT in overweight patients: optimizing scan duration versus administered dose. J Nucl Med 2009; 50 (06) 844-848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Cox CPW, Segbers M, Graven LH, Brabander T, van Assema DME. Standardized image quality for 68 Ga-DOTA-TATE PET/CT. EJNMMI Res 2020; 10 (01) 27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar