6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Validation of Phantom-Based Harmonization for Patient Harmonization

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          To improve the precision of multicenter clinical trials, several efforts are underway to determine scanner-specific parameters for harmonization using standardized phantom measurements. The goal of this study was to test the correspondence between quantification in phantom and patient images and validate the use of phantoms for harmonization of patient images.

          Methods

          The National Electrical Manufacturers’ Association image quality phantom with hot spheres was scanned on two time-of-flight PET scanners. Whole-body [ 18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET scans were acquired of subjects on the same systems. List-mode events from spheres (diam.: 10–28 mm) measured in air on each scanner were embedded into the phantom and subject list-mode data from each scanner to create lesions with known uptake with respect to the local background in the phantom and each subject’s liver and lung regions, as a proxy to characterize true lesion quantification. Images were analyzed using the contrast recovery coefficient ( CRC) typically used in phantom studies and serving as a surrogate for the standardized uptake value used clinically. Post-reconstruction filtering (resolution recovery and Gaussian smoothing) was applied to determine if the effect on the phantom images translates equivalently to subject images. Three post-filtering strategies were selected to harmonize the CRC mean or CRC max values between the two scanners based on the phantom measurements and then applied to the subject images.

          Results

          Both the average CRC mean and CRC max values for lesions embedded in the lung and liver in four subjects (BMI range 25–38) agreed to within 5% with the CRC values for lesions embedded in the phantom for all lesion sizes. In addition, the relative changes in CRC mean and CRC max resulting from the application of the post-filters on the subject and phantom images were consistent within measurement uncertainty. Further, the root mean squared percent difference ( RMS pd ) between CRC values on the two scanners calculated over the 3 sphere sizes was significantly reduced in the subjects using post-filtering strategies chosen to harmonize CRC mean or CRC max based on phantom measurements: RMS pd of the CRC mean values in subjects was reduced from 36% to <8% after harmonizing CRC mean , while RMS pd for CRC max was reduced from ~33% to <6% after harmonizing CRC max with a different strategy. However, with this strategy designed to harmonize CRC max , the RMS pd for CRC mean only improved to ~14% in subjects.

          Conclusions

          The consistency of the CRC measurements between the phantom and subject data demonstrates that harmonization strategies defined with phantom studies track well to patient images. However, quantitative agreement between different scanners as represented by the RMS pd depends on the metric chosen for harmonization.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          0425746
          5648
          Med Phys
          Med Phys
          Medical physics
          0094-2405
          2473-4209
          5 May 2017
          09 June 2017
          July 2017
          01 July 2018
          : 44
          : 7
          : 3534-3544
          Affiliations
          Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
          Author notes
          For correspondence or reprints, contact: Margaret E. Daube-Witherspoon, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Hamilton Walk, John Morgan Building, Room #156H, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104, Telephone Number: 703-250-3689, daubewit@ 123456mail.med.upenn.edu
          Article
          PMC5508562 PMC5508562 5508562 nihpa872436
          10.1002/mp.12311
          5508562
          28464372
          d4662d58-45d2-4bcb-bad5-1854be3424e9
          History
          Categories
          Article

          Harmonization,PET/CT Imaging,Quantification
          Harmonization, PET/CT Imaging, Quantification

          Comments

          Comment on this article