English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  Changes in maximum standardised uptake values (SUV max ) between serial PET/CT studies are used to determine disease progression or regression in oncologic patients. To measure these changes manually can be time consuming in a clinical routine. A semi-automatic method for calculation of SUV max  in serial PET/CT studies was developed and compared to a conventional manual method. The semi-automatic method first aligns the serial PET/CT studies based on the CT images. Thereafter, the reader selects an abnormal lesion in one of the PET studies. After this manual step, the program automatically detects the corresponding lesion in the other PET study, segments the two lesions and calculates the SUV max  in both studies as well as the difference between the SUV max  values. The results of the semi-automatic analysis were compared to that of a manual SUV max  analysis using a Philips PET/CT workstation. Three readers did the SUV max  readings in both methods. Sixteen patients with lung cancer or lymphoma who had undergone two PET/CT studies were included. There were a total of 26 lesions.    Results  Linear regression analysis of changes in SUV max  show that intercepts and slopes are close to the line of identity for all readers (reader 1: intercept = 1.02, R 2  = 0.96; reader 2: intercept = 0.97, R 2  = 0.98; reader 3: intercept = 0.99, R 2  = 0.98). Manual and semi-automatic method agreed in all cases whether SUV max  had increased or decreased between the serial studies. The average time to measure SUV max  changes in two serial PET/CT examinations was four to five times longer for the manual method compared to the semi-automatic method for all readers (reader 1: 53.7 vs. 10.5 s; reader 2: 27.3 vs. 6.9 s; reader 3: 47.5 vs. 9.5 s;  p  < 0.001 for all).    Conclusions  Good agreement was shown in assessment of SUV max  changes between manual and semi-automatic method. The semi-automatic analysis was four to five times faster to perform than the manual analysis. These findings show the feasibility of using semi-automatic methods for calculation of SUV max  in clinical routine and encourage further development of programs using this type of methods.

Semi-automatic analysis of standard uptake values in serial PET/CT studies in patients with lung cancer and lymphoma