Abstract
Objectives: To determine if unexpected aorta uptake seen in some patients is influenced... more Abstract Objectives: To determine if unexpected aorta uptake seen in some patients is influenced by popular modern reconstruction algorithms using semi-quantitative and qualitative analysis. Methods: Twenty-five consecutive patients without suspected vascular disease were selected for 18 F-FDG positron emission tomography/ computed tomography (PET/CT) scanning and images of the aorta were created using iterative reconstruction (IT), IT + time of flight (TOF), IT + TOF + point spread function correction (referred collectively as UHD) with and without metal artefact reduction (MAR) algorithms. An experienced radiologist created aorta and blood pool (BP) regions of interests then copied these to all reconstructions for accurate positioning before recording target aorta standardized-uptake-values (SUV max) and background BP SUV mean. Furthermore, target-to-background ratio (TBR max) was defined by aorta SUV max-to-BP SUV mean ratio for more analysis. Results: For aorta SUV max with IT, IT + TOF, UHD, UHD + MAR reconstructions the mean ± standard deviation recorded were 2.15±0.43, 2.25±0.51, 2.25±0.45 and 2.09±0.4, respectively. Values for BP SUV mean were 1.61±0.31, 1.58±0.28, 1.58±0.28 and 1.47±0.25, respectively. Likewise, for TBR max these were 1.35±0.19, 1.43±0.21, 1.43±0.19, 1.43±0.18, respectively. ANOVA analysis revealed no significant differences for aorta SUV max (F(0.86) p=0.46), BP SUV mean (F(1.22) p=0.31) or TBR max (F(0.99) p=0.4). However, the qualitative visual analysis revealed significant differences between IT + TOF with UHD (p=0.02) or UHD + MAR (p=0.02). Conclusion: Reconstruction algorithm effect on aorta SUV max or BP SUV mean or TBR max was not statistically significant. However, qualitative visual analysis showed significant differences between IT + TOF as compared with UHD or UHD + MAR reconstructions. Harmonization of techniques with a larger patient cohort is recommended in future clinical trials.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine if unexpected aorta uptake seen in some patients is influenced... more Abstract Objectives: To determine if unexpected aorta uptake seen in some patients is influenced by popular modern reconstruction algorithms using semi-quantitative and qualitative analysis. Methods: Twenty-five consecutive patients without suspected vascular disease were selected for 18 F-FDG positron emission tomography/ computed tomography (PET/CT) scanning and images of the aorta were created using iterative reconstruction (IT), IT + time of flight (TOF), IT + TOF + point spread function correction (referred collectively as UHD) with and without metal artefact reduction (MAR) algorithms. An experienced radiologist created aorta and blood pool (BP) regions of interests then copied these to all reconstructions for accurate positioning before recording target aorta standardized-uptake-values (SUV max) and background BP SUV mean. Furthermore, target-to-background ratio (TBR max) was defined by aorta SUV max-to-BP SUV mean ratio for more analysis. Results: For aorta SUV max with IT, IT + TOF, UHD, UHD + MAR reconstructions the mean ± standard deviation recorded were 2.15±0.43, 2.25±0.51, 2.25±0.45 and 2.09±0.4, respectively. Values for BP SUV mean were 1.61±0.31, 1.58±0.28, 1.58±0.28 and 1.47±0.25, respectively. Likewise, for TBR max these were 1.35±0.19, 1.43±0.21, 1.43±0.19, 1.43±0.18, respectively. ANOVA analysis revealed no significant differences for aorta SUV max (F(0.86) p=0.46), BP SUV mean (F(1.22) p=0.31) or TBR max (F(0.99) p=0.4). However, the qualitative visual analysis revealed significant differences between IT + TOF with UHD (p=0.02) or UHD + MAR (p=0.02). Conclusion: Reconstruction algorithm effect on aorta SUV max or BP SUV mean or TBR max was not statistically significant. However, qualitative visual analysis showed significant differences between IT + TOF as compared with UHD or UHD + MAR reconstructions. Harmonization of techniques with a larger patient cohort is recommended in future clinical trials.
Uploads
Papers by Imran Lasker
Objectives: To determine if unexpected aorta uptake seen in some patients is influenced by popular modern reconstruction algorithms using semi-quantitative and qualitative analysis.
Methods: Twenty-five consecutive patients without suspected vascular disease were selected for 18 F-FDG positron emission tomography/ computed tomography (PET/CT) scanning and images of the aorta were created using iterative reconstruction (IT), IT + time of flight (TOF), IT + TOF + point spread function correction (referred collectively as UHD) with and without metal artefact reduction (MAR) algorithms. An experienced radiologist created aorta and blood pool (BP) regions of interests then copied these to all reconstructions for accurate positioning before recording target aorta standardized-uptake-values (SUV max) and background BP SUV mean. Furthermore, target-to-background ratio (TBR max) was defined by aorta SUV max-to-BP SUV mean ratio for more analysis.
Results: For aorta SUV max with IT, IT + TOF, UHD, UHD + MAR reconstructions the mean ± standard deviation recorded were 2.15±0.43, 2.25±0.51, 2.25±0.45 and 2.09±0.4, respectively. Values for BP SUV mean were 1.61±0.31, 1.58±0.28, 1.58±0.28 and 1.47±0.25, respectively. Likewise, for TBR max these were 1.35±0.19, 1.43±0.21, 1.43±0.19, 1.43±0.18, respectively. ANOVA analysis revealed no significant differences for aorta SUV max (F(0.86) p=0.46), BP SUV mean (F(1.22) p=0.31) or TBR max (F(0.99) p=0.4). However, the qualitative visual analysis revealed significant differences between IT + TOF with UHD (p=0.02) or UHD + MAR (p=0.02).
Conclusion: Reconstruction algorithm effect on aorta SUV max or BP SUV mean or TBR max was not statistically significant. However, qualitative visual analysis showed significant differences between IT + TOF as compared with UHD or UHD + MAR reconstructions. Harmonization of techniques with a larger patient cohort is recommended in future clinical trials.
Objectives: To determine if unexpected aorta uptake seen in some patients is influenced by popular modern reconstruction algorithms using semi-quantitative and qualitative analysis.
Methods: Twenty-five consecutive patients without suspected vascular disease were selected for 18 F-FDG positron emission tomography/ computed tomography (PET/CT) scanning and images of the aorta were created using iterative reconstruction (IT), IT + time of flight (TOF), IT + TOF + point spread function correction (referred collectively as UHD) with and without metal artefact reduction (MAR) algorithms. An experienced radiologist created aorta and blood pool (BP) regions of interests then copied these to all reconstructions for accurate positioning before recording target aorta standardized-uptake-values (SUV max) and background BP SUV mean. Furthermore, target-to-background ratio (TBR max) was defined by aorta SUV max-to-BP SUV mean ratio for more analysis.
Results: For aorta SUV max with IT, IT + TOF, UHD, UHD + MAR reconstructions the mean ± standard deviation recorded were 2.15±0.43, 2.25±0.51, 2.25±0.45 and 2.09±0.4, respectively. Values for BP SUV mean were 1.61±0.31, 1.58±0.28, 1.58±0.28 and 1.47±0.25, respectively. Likewise, for TBR max these were 1.35±0.19, 1.43±0.21, 1.43±0.19, 1.43±0.18, respectively. ANOVA analysis revealed no significant differences for aorta SUV max (F(0.86) p=0.46), BP SUV mean (F(1.22) p=0.31) or TBR max (F(0.99) p=0.4). However, the qualitative visual analysis revealed significant differences between IT + TOF with UHD (p=0.02) or UHD + MAR (p=0.02).
Conclusion: Reconstruction algorithm effect on aorta SUV max or BP SUV mean or TBR max was not statistically significant. However, qualitative visual analysis showed significant differences between IT + TOF as compared with UHD or UHD + MAR reconstructions. Harmonization of techniques with a larger patient cohort is recommended in future clinical trials.