Radiotherapy & Oncology
Volume 96, Issue 3 , Pages 288-297 , September 2010

PET/CT (and CT) instrumentation, image reconstruction and data transfer for radiotherapy planning

  • Bernhard Sattler

      Affiliations

    • Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Leipzig, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Address: University Hospital Leipzig, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Liebigstrasse 18, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
    • ,
  • John A. Lee

      Affiliations

    • Molecular Imaging and Experimental Radiotherapy, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
    • ,
  • Markus Lonsdale

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Physiology & Nuclear Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
    • ,
  • Emmanuel Coche

      Affiliations

    • Radiology Department, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium

Received 21 June 2010 ,Revised 8 July 2010 ,Accepted 8 July 2010.

References 

  1. Gambhir SS, et al. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1S–93S
  2. Townsend DW. From 3-D positron emission tomography to 3-D positron emission tomography/computed tomography: what did we learn?. Mol Imaging Biol. 2004;6:275–290
  3. Casey ME, Nutt R. A multicrystal two-dimensional BGO detector system for PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1986;33:460–463
  4. Karp JS, et al. Performance standards in positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med. 1991;12:2342–2350
  5. Karp JS. Is LSO the future of PET?. Eur J Nucl Med. 2002;29:1525–1528
  6. Nutt R. Is LSO the future of PET?. Eur J Nucl Med. 2002;29:1523–1524
  7. Townsend D. Multimodality imaging of structure and function. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:R1–R39
  8. Hasegawa B, et al. Description of a simultaneous emission–transmission CT system. Proc Soc Photo-Opt Instrum Eng (SPIE). 1990;1231:50–60
  9. Geworski L, et al. Verification of co-registration accuracy of PET/CT [Überprüfung der Co-Registrierung der PET/CT-Daten im Rahmen der Konstanzprüfung]. Nuklearmedizin. 2008;47:A83–A84
  10. Gladish GW, Choe DH, Marom EM, Sabloff BS, Broemling LD, Munden RF. Incidental pulmonary emboli in oncology patients: prevalence, CT evaluation and natural history. Radiology. 2006;240:246–255
  11. Delbeke D, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:885–895
  12. Krause B, et al. FDG-PET/CT in oncology, German Guideline. Nuklearmedizin. 2007;46:291–301
  13. Boellaard R, et al. EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181–200
  14. Antoch G, et al. Accuracy of whole-body PET/CT for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET in 260 patients. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4357–4368
  15. Kinahan P, Hasegawa B, Beyer T. X-ray based attenuation correction for PET/CT scanners. Semin Nucl Med. 2003;33:166–179
  16. Beyer T, et al. Acquisition protocol considerations for combined PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:25S–35S
  17. Boellard R, et al. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:11S–20S
  18. Defrise M, Kinahan PE, Michel C. Image reconstruction algorithms in PET. In:  Valk PE,  Bailey DL,  Townsend DW,  Maisey MN editor. Positron emission tomography: basic science and clinical practice. Springer; 2004;p. 91–114
  19. Alessio A, Kinahan P. PET image reconstruction. In:  Henkin RE, et al. editor. Nuclear medicine. 2nd ed.. Elsevier; 2006;
  20. Markham J, Mullani NA, Ter-Pogossian MM. Feasibility of time-of-flight reconstruction in positron emission tomography. J Nucl Med. 1980;21:1095–1097
  21. Moses WW. Time of flight in PET revisited. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2003;50:1325–1330
  22. Conti M, Bendriem B, Casey M, Chen M, Kehren F, Michel C, et al. First experimental results of time of-flight reconstruction on an LSO PET scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:4507–4526
  23. Watson CC. Image noise variance in 3D OSEM reconstruction of clinical time-of-flight PET. In: IEEE NSS MIC; 2006, M045.
  24. Meikle SR, Badawi RD. Quantitative techniques in PET. In:  Valk PE,  Bailey DL,  Townsend DW,  Maisey MN editor. Positron emission tomography: basic science and clinical practice. Springer; 2004;p. 115–146
  25. Wang CX, Snyder WE, Bilbro G, Santago P. Performance evaluation of filtered backprojection reconstruction and iterative reconstruction methods for PET images. Comput Biol Med. 1998;28:13–25
  26. Kappadath SC, Tinsu P, Erwin WD, Mawlawi O. Analysis of the dependence of PET/CT quantification on iterative reconstruction parameters. Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec IEEE. 2007;6:4406–4409
  27. Hudson HM, Larkin RS. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994;13:601–609
  28. Lewitt RM. Alternatives to voxels for image representation in iterative reconstruction algorithms. Phys Med Biol. 1992;37:705–716
  29. Matej S, Herman GT, Narayanan TK, Furie SS, Lewitt RM, Kinahan PE. Evaluation of task-oriented performance of several fully 3D PET reconstruction algorithms. Phys Med Biol. 1994;39:355–367
  30. Alessio A, Kinahan P, Lewellen T. Modeling and incorporation of system response functions in 3D whole body PET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25:828–837
  31. Daisne JF, Sibomana M, Bol A, Doumont T, Lonneux M, Grégoire V. Tri-dimensional automatic segmentation of PET volumes based on measured source-to-background ratios: influence of reconstruction algorithms. Radiother Oncol. 2003;69:247–250
  32. Kessler RM, Ellis JR, Eden M. Analysis of emission tomographic scan data: limitations imposed by resolution and background. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1984;8:514–522
  33. King MA, Long DT, Brill AV. SPECT volume quantitation: influence of spatial resolution, source size and shape, and voxel size. Med Phys. 1991;18:1016–1024
  34. van Dalen JA, Hoffmann AL, Dicken V, Vogel WV, Wiering B, Ruers TJ, et al. A novel iterative method for lesion delineation and volumetric quantification with FDG PET. Nucl Med Commun. 2007;28:485–493
  35. Geets X, Lee J, Bol A, Lonneux M, Grégoire V. A gradient-based method for segmenting FDG-PET images: methodology and validation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1427–1438
  36. Barbee D, Flynn R, Jaskowiak C, Jeraj R. Effects of PET reconstruction parameters on the delineation of heterogeneous target volumes. Med Phys. 2006;33:2242–2243
  37. Tanderup K, Olsen DG, Grau C. Dose painting: art or science?. Radiother Oncol Volume. 2006;79:245–248
  38. Bailey DL. Data acquisition and performance characterization in PET. In:  Valk PE,  Bailey DL,  Townsend DW,  Maisey MN editor. Positron emission tomography: basic science and clinical practice. Springer; 2004;p. 69–90
  39. Carney JPJ, Watson CC, Townsend DW. Optimization of the relative acquisition duration for PET/CT imaging in oncology. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec. 2004;5:2910–2914
  40. Pfannenberg AC, Aschoff P, Brechtel K, Müller M, Bares R, Paulsen F, et al. Low dose non-enhanced CT versus standard dose contrast-enhanced CT in combined PET/CT protocols for staging and therapy planning in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:36–44
  41. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Domeki Y, Kaji Y, Fukasawa I, et al. Performance of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer: comparison with integrated FDG-PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1439–1448
  42. Tateishi U, Maeda T, Morimoto T, Miyake M, Arai Y, Kim EE. Non-enhanced CT versus contrast-enhanced CT in integrated PET/CT studies for nodal staging of rectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1627–1634
  43. Pfannenberg AC, Aschoff P, Brechtel K, Müller M, Klein M, Bares R, et al. Value of contrast-enhanced multiphase CT in combined PET/CT protocols for oncological imaging. Br J Radiol. 2007;80:437–445
  44. Silverman PM, Kalender WA, Hazle JD. Common terminology for single and multislice helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:1135–1136
  45. Kalender WA. Computed tomography. 1st ed.. Munich, Germany: Publicis MCD Verlag; 2000;p. 65–118
  46. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography, EUR 16262EN. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, http://www.drs.dk/guidelines/ct/quality/htmlindex.htm; 2000.
  47. Teräs M, Tolvanen T, Johansson JJ, Williams JJ, Knuuti J. Performance of the new generation of whole-body PET/CT scanners: discovery STE and discovery VCT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1683–1692
  48. Mahesh M. The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: search for isotropic resolution in ct from conventional through multiple-row detector. Radiographics. 2002;22:949–962
  49. Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C, Gies M, Greess H, Bautz WA. Dose reduction in CT by on-line tube current control: principles and validation on phantoms and cadavers. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:323–328
  50. Gies M, Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation, I. Simulation studies. Med Phys. 1999;26:2235–2247
  51. Brink JA, McFarland EG, Heiken JP. Helical/spiral computed body tomography. Clin Radiol. 1997;52:489–503
  52. Verdun FR, Meuli RA, Bochud FO, Imsand C, Raimondi S, Schnyder P, et al. Image quality and dose in spiral computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 1996;6:485–488
  53. Malawi O, Erasmus JJ, Munden RF, et al. Quantifying the effect of IV contrast media on integrated PET/CT: clinical evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:308–319
  54. Bunyaviroch T, Turkington TG, Wong TZ, Wilson JW, Colsher JG, Coleman RE. Quantitative effects of contrast enhanced CT attenuation correction on PET SUV measurements. Mol Imaging Biol. 2008;10:107–113
  55. Büther F, Stegger L, Dawood M, Range F, Schäfers M, Fischbach R, et al. Effective methods to correct contrast agent-induced errors in PET quantification in cardiac PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1060–1068
  56. Stockberger SM, Hicklin JA, Liang Y, Wass JL, Ambrosius WT. Spiral CT with ionic and nonionic contrast material: evaluation of patient motion and scan quality. Radiology. 1998;206:631–636
  57. Valentine A, Jakobsen JA, Klaveness AJ. Iopentol (Imagopaque 350) compared with diatrizoate (Urografin 370) in cerebral CT, A clinical trial assessing immediate and late (7days) adverse events and diagnostic information (visualization quality and Hounsfield unit measurements). Eur Radiol. 1997;7:S145–S148
  58. Ho LM, Nelson RC, Delong DM. Determining contrast medium dose and rate on basis of lean body weight: does this strategy improve patient-to-patient uniformity of hepatic enhancement during multi-detector row CT?. Radiology. 2007;243:431–437
  59. Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Kondo H, et al. Pancreas: optimal scan delay for contrast-enhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology. 2006;241:167–174
  60. Chung YE, Kim KW, Kim JH, Lim JS, Oh YT, Chung JJ, et al. Optimal delay time for the hepatic parenchymal enhancement at the multidetector CT examination. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2006;30:182–188
  61. Herman S. Computed tomography contrast enhancement principles and the use of high-concentration contrast media. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2004;28:S7–S11
  62. Fleischmann D. Use of high-concentration contrast media in multiple-detector-row CT: principles and rationale. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:M14–M20
  63. Megibow AJ, Bosniak MA. Diluted barium as contrast agent for abdominal CT. Am J Roentgenol AJR. 1980;134:1273–1274
  64. Ott DJ, Gelfand DW. Gastrointestinal contrast agents. JAMA. 1983;249:2380–2384
  65. Hausegger K, Reinprecht P, Kau T, Igerc I, Lind P. Clinical experience with a commercially available negative oral contrast medium in PET. CT. Rofo. 2005;177:796–799
  66. Antoch G, Kuehl H, Kanja J, Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H, Hauth E, et al. Dual-modality PET/CT scanning with negative oral contrast agent to avoid artifacts: introduction and evaluation. Radiology. 2004;230:879–885
  67. Webb JA. Prevention of acute reactions. In:  Thomsen HS editors. Contrast media safety issues and ESUR guidelines. 1st ed.. Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2006;p. 11–17
  68. Wang CL, Cohan RH, Ellis JH, Caoili EM, Wang G, Francis IR. Frequency, outcome and appropriateness of treatment of non-ionic iodinated contrast media reactions. Am J Roentgenol AJR. 2008;191:409–415
  69. Thomsen HS. European Society of Urogenital Radiology. European Society of Urogenital Radiology guidelines on contrast media application. Curr Opin Urol. 2007;17:70–76
  70. Thomsen HS, Morcos SK. Contrast-medium-induced nephropathy: is there a new consensus? A review of published guidelines. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:1835–1840
  71. Thomsen HS, Morcos SK. ESUR. ESUR guidelines on contrast media. Abdom Imaging. 2006;31:131–140
  72. Hou SH, Bushinsky DA, Wish JB, et al. Hospital acquired renal insufficiency. Am J Med. 1983;74:243–248
  73. Nash K, Hafeez A, Hou S. Hospital-acquired renal insufficiency. Am J Kidney. 2002;39:930–936
  74. Solomon R. Contrast medium-induced acute renal failure. Kidney Int. 1988;53:230–242
  75. Thomsen HS. Non-Insulin dependent diabetes and contrast media. In:  Thomsen HS editors. Contrast media safety issues and ESUR guidelines. 1st ed.. Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2006;p. 53–55
  76. van der Molen AJ, Thomsen HS, Morcos SK. Contrast Media Safety Committee, European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR). Effect of iodinated contrast media on thyroid function in adults. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:902–907
  77. Erdi YE, et al. The CT motion quantitation of lung lesions and its impact on PET-measured SUVs. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1287–1292
  78. Osman MM, et al. Clinically significant inaccurate localization of lesions with PET/CT: frequency in 300 patients. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:240–243
  79. Martinez-Möller A, et al. Dual cardiac-respiratory gated PET: implementation and results from a feasibility study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1447–1454
  80. Souvatzoglou M, et al. Attenuation correction in cardiac PET/CT with three different CT protocols: a comparison with conventional PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1991–2000
  81. Rosenzweig KE, et al. The deep inspiration breath-hold technique in the treatment of inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48:81–87
  82. Weber W, et al. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1771–1777
  83. Weber W. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:983–995
  84. Jentzen W, et al. Iodine-124 PET dosimetry in differentiated thyroid cancer: recovery coefficient in 2D and 3D modes for PET(/CT) systems. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:611–623
  85. Evans PM, et al. Topical review: anatomical imaging for radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:R151–R191
  86. Nestle U, et al. Topical review: biological imaging in radiation therapy: role of positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:R1–R25
  87. NEMA. DICOM Supplement 12, Addendum to part 3, positron emission tomography image objects, Final Text, 9, http://dicom.nema.org/; June 1996.
  88. NEMA. DICOM, Part 3, Information Object Definitions, http://dicom.nema.org; 2008.
  89. NEMA. DICOM Supplement 1, Addenda to part 10 on Directory, Media Storage Service Class and Data Dictionary, Final Text; February 26 1995.
  90. NEMA. DICOM, Part 10, Media Storage and File Format for Media Interchange, http://dicom.nema.org; 2008.
  91. NEMA. DICOM, Supplement 11, Addendum to part 3, Radiotherapy Objects, Final Text, http://dicom.nema.org/; 29 April 1997.
  92. MacManus MP, Hicks RJ. Where do we draw the line? Contouring tumors on positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:2–4
  93. Nestle U, et al. Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1342–1348
  94. Geets X, et al. A gradient-based method for segmenting FDG-PET images: methodology and validation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1427–1438
  95. Karp J, et al. Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:462–470
  96. Beyer T, et al. Reduced motion artifacts in the head/neck region of whole-body PET/CT studies through the use of positioning aids. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:428P
  97. Beyer T, et al. Respiration artifacts in whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT studies with combined PET/CT tomographs employing spiral CT technology with 1 to 16 detector rows. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:1429–1439
  98. Beyer T, et al. A limited breath-hold technique for improved image quality in multi-slice PET/CT exams. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:274P–275P
  99. Bettinardi V, et al. An automatic classification technique for attenuation correction in positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26:447–458
  100. Beyer T, et al. Whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT in the presence of truncation artifacts. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:91–99
  101. Schaller S, et al. An algorithm for virtual extension of the CT field of measurement for application in combined PET/CT scanners. Radiology. 2002;225:497
  102. Ohnesorge B, et al. Efficient correction for CT image artifacts caused by objects extending outside the scan field-of-view. Med Phys. 2000;27:39–46
  103. Pfannenberg A, et al. Low dose non-enhanced CT versus standard dose contrast-enhanced CT in combined PET/CT protocols for staging and therapy planning in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:36–44
  104. Brechtel K, et al. Optimized contrast enhanced CT protocols for diagnostic whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT: single-phase versus multi-phase CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:470–476
  105. Strobel K, Thuerl C, Hany T. How much intravenous contrast is needed in FDG-PET/CT?. Nuklearmedizin. 2005;44:S32–S37
  106. Kuehl H, Antoch G. How much CT do we need for PET/CT? A radiologist’s perspective. Nuklearmedizin. 2005;44:S24–S31
  107. Hausegger K, et al. Clinical experience with a commercially available negative oral contrast medium in PET/CT. Fortschr Roentgenstr. 2005;177:796–799
  108. Beyer T, et al. Optimized IV contrast administration protocols for diagnostic PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:429–435
  109. Antoch G, et al. Dual-modality PET/CT scanning with negative oral contrast agent to avoid artifacts: introduction and evaluation. Radiology. 2004;230:879–885
  110. Antoch G, et al. Contrast-induced artifacts in dual-modality PET/CT: can a negative oral contrast agent solve the problem?. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:377P
  111. Schäfers K, Raupach R, Beyer T. Combined 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging of the head and neck. An approach to metal artifact correction. Nuklearmedizin. 2006;45:219–222
  112. DiFilippo FP, Brunken RC. Do implanted pacemakers leads and ICD leads cause metal-related artifact in cardiac PET/CT?. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:436–443
  113. Halpern BS, et al. Cardiac pacemakers and central venous lines can induce focal artifacts on CT-corrected PET images. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:290–293
  114. Mahnken AH, et al. A new algorithm for metal artifact reduction in computed tomography, in vitro and in vivo evaluation after total hip replacement. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:769–775
  115. Kamel EM, et al. Impact of metallic dental implants on CT-based attenuation correction in a combined PET/CT scanner. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:724–728
  116. Goerres GW, et al. Artifacts at PET and PET/CT caused by metallic hip prosthetic material. Radiology. 2003;226:577–584
  117. Goerres G, Schmid D, Eyrich G. Do hardware artefacts influence the performance of head and neck PET scans in patients with oral cavity squamous cell cancer?. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003;32:365–371
  118. Bujenovic S, et al. Artifactual 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose localization surrounding metallic objects in a PET/CT scanner using CT-based attenuation correction. Mol Imaging Biol. 2003;5:20–22
  119. Grégoire V, Haustermans K, Geets X, Roels S, Lonneux M. PET-based treatment planning in radiotherapy: a new standard?. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:68S–77S
  120. Mac Manus M, Hicks RJ, Everitt S. Role of PET–CT in the optimization of thoracic radiotherapy. J Thorac Oncol. 2006;1:81–84
  121. Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, Berthelsen AK, Specht L. Clinical impact of FDG-PET/CT in the planning of radiotherapy for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Haematol. 2007;78:206–212
  122. Jarritt PH, Carson KJ, Hounsell AR, Visvikis D. The role of PET/CT scanning in radiotherapy planning. Br J Radiol. 2006;79:S27–S35
  123. Messa C, Di Muzio N, Picchio M, Gilardi MC, Bettinardi V, Fazio F. PET/CT and radiotherapy. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;50:4–14
  124. Leong T, Everitt C, Yuen K, Condron S, Hui A, Ngan SY, et al. A prospective study to evaluate the impact of FDG-PET on CT-based radiotherapy treatment planning for oesophageal cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2006;78:254–261

PII: S0167-8140(10)00400-7

doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.07.009

Radiotherapy & Oncology
Volume 96, Issue 3 , Pages 288-297 , September 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution