SNM Annual Meeting Abstracts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     




J Nucl Med. 2012; 53 (Supplement 1):2238
This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clark, A.
Right arrow Articles by Oates, M.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Clark, A.
Right arrow Articles by Oates, M.

Instrumentation & Data Analysis

MTA II: Data Analysis & Management Posters

18FDG PET scan parameters in peer-reviewed literature: Need for standardization

Aurela Clark1, Partha Sinha1, Gary Conrad1 and M. Oates1

1 Radiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

Abstract No. 2238

Objectives: Analysis of consistency and completeness of 18FDG PET scan parameters described in peer-reviewed articles in top imaging journals.

Methods: Forty-four specific 18FDG PET scan parameters encompassing preparation, technique, and interpretation were defined and grouped into four categories: Instrumentation (13 parameters), Procedure (6 parameters), Patient (19 parameters), and Analysis (6 parameters). All 18FDG PET or PET/CT articles published in the top seven imaging journals during 2009 and 2010 were identified through PubMed. After excluding review articles and case reports, 240 papers were available for analysis. Each of the 44 parameters was searched for, and recorded as present or absent.

Results: At least one parameter within each category was reported in every article. Regarding Instrumentation, manufacturer and scanner model were most commonly described (227/240), whereas the size of the CT field of view was least commonly reported (23/240); mean number of missing parameters was 7.4 (+/- 2.4). Regarding Procedure, 18FDG dose was most common (215/240) and specific mention of respiratory gating, performed or not performed, least common (7/240) with mean of 4.2 (+/- 1.0) missing. Regarding Patient, 18FDG incubation time was most common (190/240); no paper specified attempts to quantify extravenous infiltration of 18FDG (if any); with mean of 14.4 (+/- 3.0) missing. Regarding Analysis, type of interpretation workstation was most common (164/240) and technique of image fusion least common (5/240); with mean of 5.2 (+/- 0.9) missing.

Conclusions: Considerable variability exists in the high impact imaging literature regarding the gamut of important methodological details of the 18FDG PET scan performed as a key element of the scientific study. Journals could provide their reviewers with guidelines to ensure completeness and consistency. More uniformity is desirable because it would facilitate reproducibility, particularly when comparing SUVs





This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clark, A.
Right arrow Articles by Oates, M.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Clark, A.
Right arrow Articles by Oates, M.