Scholarlink

Purpose <p>It is unclear whether the use of contrast enhanced (CE) CT for attenuation correction (AC) of [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET leads to higher quantification inaccuracies when used in high-sensitivity LAFOV systems. This project aimed to assess the clinical feasibility of CE-CT for AC in LAFOV-PET for lymphoma patients.</p> Methods <p>Lymphoma patients who underwent LAFOV-[<sup>18</sup>F]FDG-PET for restaging with low dose AC-CT and diagnostic CE-CT were included in this retrospective analysis. PET images were reconstructed using ultra-high sensitivity (UHS) mode with CE-CT and AC-CT. Lesions and reference regions (liver and mediastinal blood pool (BP)) were evaluated.</p> Results <p>SUV<sub>max</sub> of BP and the liver increased when CE-CT was used instead of AC-CT for AC (BP: median 2.41vs.2.21, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01, 8.78% intra-patient increase; liver: 3.07vs.2.87, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01, 7.86% medina intra-patient increase). Similarly, SUV<sub>mean</sub> was higher in CE-CT reconstructions (BP: 1.96vs.1.77, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01, 10.14% median intra-patient increase; liver: 2.50vs.2.32, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01, 7.54% median intra-patient increase). SUV<sub>max</sub> of lesions showed a similar magnitude of increase (5.97vs.5.68, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01, 5.80% median intra-lesion increase). The SUV-ratio of the lesions to reference organs decreased when CE-CT instead of AC-CT was used for AC (BP: 2.79vs.2.99, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01, median per-lesion decrease − 4.90%; liver: 1.85vs.1.97, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01, median per-lesion decrease − 2.64%).</p> Conclusion <p>The use of CE-CT for AC of LAFOV-PET in UHS mode leads to higher SUV measurements. Also, lymphoma lesions show a consistent increase in uptake. The errors in the lesions seem higher than in conventional standard axial field-of-view PETs that use CE-CT for AC. Therefore, interpretation of borderline cases warrants attention to potential errors. </p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Contrast-enhanced CT for attenuation correction in ultra-high sensitivity long-axial field-of-view lymphoma PET: amplified quantification problems?

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月13日

查看全文
  • Jan-Luca Penner,
  • August Blomgren,
  • Alexander Weissensee,
  • Michelle Amon,
  • Shayan Acikgöz,
  • Clemens Mingels,
  • Justin Ferdinandus,
  • Foroud Aghapour Zangeneh,
  • Urban Novak,
  • Thomas Pabst,
  • Axel Rominger,
  • Kuangyu Shi,
  • Hasan Sari,
  • Robert Seifert

摘要

Purpose

It is unclear whether the use of contrast enhanced (CE) CT for attenuation correction (AC) of [18F]FDG PET leads to higher quantification inaccuracies when used in high-sensitivity LAFOV systems. This project aimed to assess the clinical feasibility of CE-CT for AC in LAFOV-PET for lymphoma patients.

Methods

Lymphoma patients who underwent LAFOV-[18F]FDG-PET for restaging with low dose AC-CT and diagnostic CE-CT were included in this retrospective analysis. PET images were reconstructed using ultra-high sensitivity (UHS) mode with CE-CT and AC-CT. Lesions and reference regions (liver and mediastinal blood pool (BP)) were evaluated.

Results

SUVmax of BP and the liver increased when CE-CT was used instead of AC-CT for AC (BP: median 2.41vs.2.21, p < 0.01, 8.78% intra-patient increase; liver: 3.07vs.2.87, p < 0.01, 7.86% medina intra-patient increase). Similarly, SUVmean was higher in CE-CT reconstructions (BP: 1.96vs.1.77, p < 0.01, 10.14% median intra-patient increase; liver: 2.50vs.2.32, p < 0.01, 7.54% median intra-patient increase). SUVmax of lesions showed a similar magnitude of increase (5.97vs.5.68, p < 0.01, 5.80% median intra-lesion increase). The SUV-ratio of the lesions to reference organs decreased when CE-CT instead of AC-CT was used for AC (BP: 2.79vs.2.99, p < 0.01, median per-lesion decrease − 4.90%; liver: 1.85vs.1.97, p < 0.01, median per-lesion decrease − 2.64%).

Conclusion

The use of CE-CT for AC of LAFOV-PET in UHS mode leads to higher SUV measurements. Also, lymphoma lesions show a consistent increase in uptake. The errors in the lesions seem higher than in conventional standard axial field-of-view PETs that use CE-CT for AC. Therefore, interpretation of borderline cases warrants attention to potential errors.