Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study.

By Ronald Boellaard, N. Krak, O. Hoekstra, A. Lammertsma. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 2004

691 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/36cc623cad966fac937fa4ca1f7c856f38ff2de6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. R. Wahl
2. H. Jacene
3. Michael Adams
4. M. Soret
5. Y. Kasamon
6. M. Lodge
7. T. Turkington
8. I. Buvat

Citations in the corpus

• Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data Analysis (2009, background): “Although scanner performance can be well characterized with NEMA NU 2 standards, there are still considerable differences in SUV outcomes among centers because of differences in patient preparation methods, PET acquisition settings, image reconstruction algorithms and settings, and data analysis sof”
• Partial-Volume Effect in PET Tumor Imaging* (2007, background): “To bypass this problem, the isocontour value can be based, for example, on the difference between the tumor activity and the background activity (10).”
• FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0 (2009, methodology): “A short scanning duration per bed position should also be offset by a higher FDG activity [3, 30].”
• Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. (2006, background): “Nevertheless, partial-volume correction has been shown to improve the diagnostic accuracy of SUV measurements (28,29).”
• A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. (2010, background): “Some groups have advocated a hybrid SUV measurement, SUVpeak, that includes a local average SUV value in a group of voxels surrounding the voxel with highest activity; the concept is to maintain the reproducibility of SUVmax with improved statistics to reduce noise [10].”
• From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (2009, background): “Choosing a threshold based on a single maximal pixel value in the tumor carries with it the variability inherent in determining a single-pixel value and is driven by that value (104,109,112,119,120).”
• FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0 (2014, unknown): “This requires reconstruction settings to be chosen such as to achieve matching convergence and spatial resolution across various systems and sites, especially within a multicentre setting [48, 58, 59].”