Variations in PET/CT methodology for oncologic imaging at U.S. academic medical centers: An imaging response assessment team survey

Michael M. Graham, Ramsey D Badawi, Richard L. Wahl

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

73 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In 2005, 8 Imaging Response Assessment Teams (IRATs) were funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as supplemental grants to existing NCI Cancer Centers. After discussion among the IRATs regarding the need for increased standardization of clinical and research PET/CT methodology, it became apparent that data acquisition and processing approaches differ considerably among centers. To determine the variability in detail, a survey of IRAT sites and IRAT affiliates was performed. Methods: A 34-question instrument evaluating patient preparation, scanner type, performance approach, display, and analysis was developed. Fifteen institutions, including the 8 original IRATs and 7 institutions that had developed affiliate IRATs, were surveyed. Results: The major areas of variation were 18F-FDG dose (259-740 MBq [7-20 mCi]) uptake time (45-90 min), sedation (never to frequently), handling of diabetic patients, imaging time (2-7 min/bed position), performance of diagnostic CT scans as a part of PET/CT, type of acquisition (2-dimensional vs. 3-dimensional), CT technique, duration of fasting (4 or 6 h), and (varying widely) acquisition, processing, display, and PACS software - with 4 sites stating that poor-quality images appear on PACS. Conclusion: There is considerable variability in the way PET/CT scans are performed at academic institutions that are part of the IRAT network. This variability likely makes it difficult to quantitatively compare studies performed at different centers. These data suggest that additional standardization in methodology will be required so that PET/CT studies, especially those performed quantitatively, are more comparable across sites.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)311-317
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Nuclear Medicine
Volume52
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2011

Fingerprint

National Cancer Institute (U.S.)
Moving and Lifting Patients
Organized Financing
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Fasting
Software
Research
Neoplasms
Surveys and Questionnaires
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography

Keywords

  • IRAT
  • Oncology
  • PET-CT
  • PET/CT
  • Quality assurance
  • Standardization
  • Variation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Variations in PET/CT methodology for oncologic imaging at U.S. academic medical centers : An imaging response assessment team survey. / Graham, Michael M.; Badawi, Ramsey D; Wahl, Richard L.

In: Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 52, No. 2, 01.02.2011, p. 311-317.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c95a63ab4b324c818f2c1dc670e80c67,
title = "Variations in PET/CT methodology for oncologic imaging at U.S. academic medical centers: An imaging response assessment team survey",
abstract = "In 2005, 8 Imaging Response Assessment Teams (IRATs) were funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as supplemental grants to existing NCI Cancer Centers. After discussion among the IRATs regarding the need for increased standardization of clinical and research PET/CT methodology, it became apparent that data acquisition and processing approaches differ considerably among centers. To determine the variability in detail, a survey of IRAT sites and IRAT affiliates was performed. Methods: A 34-question instrument evaluating patient preparation, scanner type, performance approach, display, and analysis was developed. Fifteen institutions, including the 8 original IRATs and 7 institutions that had developed affiliate IRATs, were surveyed. Results: The major areas of variation were 18F-FDG dose (259-740 MBq [7-20 mCi]) uptake time (45-90 min), sedation (never to frequently), handling of diabetic patients, imaging time (2-7 min/bed position), performance of diagnostic CT scans as a part of PET/CT, type of acquisition (2-dimensional vs. 3-dimensional), CT technique, duration of fasting (4 or 6 h), and (varying widely) acquisition, processing, display, and PACS software - with 4 sites stating that poor-quality images appear on PACS. Conclusion: There is considerable variability in the way PET/CT scans are performed at academic institutions that are part of the IRAT network. This variability likely makes it difficult to quantitatively compare studies performed at different centers. These data suggest that additional standardization in methodology will be required so that PET/CT studies, especially those performed quantitatively, are more comparable across sites.",
keywords = "IRAT, Oncology, PET-CT, PET/CT, Quality assurance, Standardization, Variation",
author = "Graham, {Michael M.} and Badawi, {Ramsey D} and Wahl, {Richard L.}",
year = "2011",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2967/jnumed.109.074104",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "52",
pages = "311--317",
journal = "Journal of Nuclear Medicine",
issn = "0161-5505",
publisher = "Society of Nuclear Medicine Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variations in PET/CT methodology for oncologic imaging at U.S. academic medical centers

T2 - An imaging response assessment team survey

AU - Graham, Michael M.

AU - Badawi, Ramsey D

AU - Wahl, Richard L.

PY - 2011/2/1

Y1 - 2011/2/1

N2 - In 2005, 8 Imaging Response Assessment Teams (IRATs) were funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as supplemental grants to existing NCI Cancer Centers. After discussion among the IRATs regarding the need for increased standardization of clinical and research PET/CT methodology, it became apparent that data acquisition and processing approaches differ considerably among centers. To determine the variability in detail, a survey of IRAT sites and IRAT affiliates was performed. Methods: A 34-question instrument evaluating patient preparation, scanner type, performance approach, display, and analysis was developed. Fifteen institutions, including the 8 original IRATs and 7 institutions that had developed affiliate IRATs, were surveyed. Results: The major areas of variation were 18F-FDG dose (259-740 MBq [7-20 mCi]) uptake time (45-90 min), sedation (never to frequently), handling of diabetic patients, imaging time (2-7 min/bed position), performance of diagnostic CT scans as a part of PET/CT, type of acquisition (2-dimensional vs. 3-dimensional), CT technique, duration of fasting (4 or 6 h), and (varying widely) acquisition, processing, display, and PACS software - with 4 sites stating that poor-quality images appear on PACS. Conclusion: There is considerable variability in the way PET/CT scans are performed at academic institutions that are part of the IRAT network. This variability likely makes it difficult to quantitatively compare studies performed at different centers. These data suggest that additional standardization in methodology will be required so that PET/CT studies, especially those performed quantitatively, are more comparable across sites.

AB - In 2005, 8 Imaging Response Assessment Teams (IRATs) were funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as supplemental grants to existing NCI Cancer Centers. After discussion among the IRATs regarding the need for increased standardization of clinical and research PET/CT methodology, it became apparent that data acquisition and processing approaches differ considerably among centers. To determine the variability in detail, a survey of IRAT sites and IRAT affiliates was performed. Methods: A 34-question instrument evaluating patient preparation, scanner type, performance approach, display, and analysis was developed. Fifteen institutions, including the 8 original IRATs and 7 institutions that had developed affiliate IRATs, were surveyed. Results: The major areas of variation were 18F-FDG dose (259-740 MBq [7-20 mCi]) uptake time (45-90 min), sedation (never to frequently), handling of diabetic patients, imaging time (2-7 min/bed position), performance of diagnostic CT scans as a part of PET/CT, type of acquisition (2-dimensional vs. 3-dimensional), CT technique, duration of fasting (4 or 6 h), and (varying widely) acquisition, processing, display, and PACS software - with 4 sites stating that poor-quality images appear on PACS. Conclusion: There is considerable variability in the way PET/CT scans are performed at academic institutions that are part of the IRAT network. This variability likely makes it difficult to quantitatively compare studies performed at different centers. These data suggest that additional standardization in methodology will be required so that PET/CT studies, especially those performed quantitatively, are more comparable across sites.

KW - IRAT

KW - Oncology

KW - PET-CT

KW - PET/CT

KW - Quality assurance

KW - Standardization

KW - Variation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79851471019&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79851471019&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2967/jnumed.109.074104

DO - 10.2967/jnumed.109.074104

M3 - Article

C2 - 21233185

AN - SCOPUS:79851471019

VL - 52

SP - 311

EP - 317

JO - Journal of Nuclear Medicine

JF - Journal of Nuclear Medicine

SN - 0161-5505

IS - 2

ER -