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 Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

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 annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  The aim of this study was to compare liver and oncologic lesion standardized uptake values (SUV) obtained through two different reconstruction protocols, GE’s newest clinical lesion detection protocol (Q.Clear) and the EANM Research Ltd (EARL) harmonization protocol, and to assess the clinical relevance of potential differences and possible implications for daily clinical practice using the PERCIST lesional inclusion criteria.  NEMA phantom recovery coefficients (RC) and SUV normalized for lean body mass (LBM), referred to as SUV normalized for LBM (SUL), of liver and lesion volumes of interest were compared between the two reconstruction protocols. Head-to-toe PET/CT examinations and raw data from 64 patients were retrospectively retrieved. PET image reconstruction was carried out twice: once optimized for quantification, complying with EARL accreditation requirements, and once optimized for lesion detection, according to GE’s Q.Clear reconstruction settings.    Results  The two reconstruction protocols showed different NEMA phantom RC values for different sphere sizes. Q.Clear values were always highest and exceeded the EARL accreditation maximum for smaller spheres. Comparison of liver SUL mean  showed a statistically significant but clinically irrelevant difference between both protocols. Comparison of lesion SUL peak  and SUL max  showed a statistically significant, and clinically relevant, difference of 1.64 and 4.57, respectively.    Conclusions  For treatment response assessment using PERCIST criteria, the harmonization reconstruction protocol should be used as the lesion detection reconstruction protocol using resolution recovery systematically overestimates true SUL values.

Impact of PET reconstruction protocols on quantification of lesions that fulfil the PERCIST lesion inclusion criteria