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


     




J Nucl Med. 2013; 54 (Supplement 2):2053
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 Chauvie, S.
Right arrow Articles by Biggi, A.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Chauvie, S.
Right arrow Articles by Biggi, A.

Instrumentation & Data Analysis

MTA II: Data Analysis & Management Posters

PET/CT imaging protocol variations in international clinical practice

Stephane Chauvie1, Fabrizio Bergesio1, Alessandra Terulla1, Andrea Gallamini1, Andrea Bianchi1 and Alberto Biggi1

1 S. Croce and Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy

Abstract No. 2053

Objectives: To verify the variability in PET imaging protocol 520 (baseline and interim) PET-CT scans of 260 patients provided by 17 centers in Australia, Denmark, France, Israel, Italy, Poland, UK and US performed following the routine local PET/CT protocol between January 2002 and December 2009.

Methods: We analysed the DICOM header of the PET scan to obtain information on the protocol acquisition procedure.

Results: The study observed that the injected activity was ranging between 48 and 756 MBq due to the fact that some centers scaled it to body weight, while others used a fixed activity. The mean value and the standard deviation were calculated founding (360±88) MBq. The effective dose, calculated from ICRP, was (6.85±1.58) mSv. Uptake time mean value and standard deviation, obtained from a range value of 21-179 minutes, were (79±24) min. A normal distribution of uptake time over the 55-100 min range was found; the adherence to EANM guidelines for PET scanning (uptake time of 60±10 min) was confirmed only in 142 (27%) PET. The liver SUV mean and max for all patients were (1.86±0.48) g/ml and (2.63±0.69) g/ml respectively while the mediastinal Blood Pool Structures (MBPS) SUV mean and max were (1.36±0.38) g/ml and (1.85±0.45) g/ml respectively. No relationship was found between liver SUV and injected activity, patient weight or height. There was a significant difference in SUV mean and max for subjects with BMI >25 compared to BMI< 25 patients (p<0.05). A correlation (p<0.01) was found between liver mean and max SUV and uptake time. Scans with time ≤ 75 minutes had SUV mean and max of 1.76±0.45 and 2.75±0.65 respectively; SUV mean and max in scans with time >75 minutes, instead were of 1.98±0.49 and 2.75±0.50 respectively.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that there is a wide variation in clinical practice regarding administrated activity for PET applications. A significant percentage of scans did not have DICOM header information that is essential to measure SUV (18%) or SUL (49%) or to review the images in a consistent way using a SUV scale.





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 Chauvie, S.
Right arrow Articles by Biggi, A.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Chauvie, S.
Right arrow Articles by Biggi, A.