Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation

Various factors have been identified that influence quantitative accuracy and image interpretation in positron emission tomography (PET). Through the continuous introduction of new PET technology-both imaging hardware and reconstruction software-into clinical care, we now find ourselves in a transit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Diagnostics (Basel) 2022-02, Vol.12 (2), p.451
Main Authors: Rogasch, Julian M M, Hofheinz, Frank, van Heek, Lutz, Voltin, Conrad-Amadeus, Boellaard, Ronald, Kobe, Carsten
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biodistribution
Body mass index
contrast recovery
Glucose
image interpretation
image quality
Influence
Insulin
Medical imaging
Noise
Physiology
positron emission tomography
Prostate
quantitative accuracy
Review
Scanners
signal-to-noise ratio
Tomography
Tumors
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-2068c7cbfc16aa83195e377ca3364415262abbf2847cbaf7bdd7e39d916c9bbc3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-2068c7cbfc16aa83195e377ca3364415262abbf2847cbaf7bdd7e39d916c9bbc3
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page 451
container_title Diagnostics (Basel)
container_volume 12
creator Rogasch, Julian M M
Hofheinz, Frank
van Heek, Lutz
Voltin, Conrad-Amadeus
Boellaard, Ronald
Kobe, Carsten
description Various factors have been identified that influence quantitative accuracy and image interpretation in positron emission tomography (PET). Through the continuous introduction of new PET technology-both imaging hardware and reconstruction software-into clinical care, we now find ourselves in a transition period in which traditional and new technologies coexist. The effects on the clinical value of PET imaging and its interpretation in routine clinical practice require careful reevaluation. In this review, we provide a comprehensive summary of important factors influencing quantification and interpretation with a focus on recent developments in PET technology. Finally, we discuss the relationship between quantitative accuracy and subjective image interpretation.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/diagnostics12020451
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_ce8b268821ea4e038aece4d64bcb0746</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_ce8b268821ea4e038aece4d64bcb0746</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2633877484</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-2068c7cbfc16aa83195e377ca3364415262abbf2847cbaf7bdd7e39d916c9bbc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkV1LHDEUhkNRqqi_oFAWetObrfmaJHMjFPFjQVDBXoeTzJltltlkTWYK_fdmXStazE3Cm_c8nHNeQr4w-kOIlp52AZYxlTH4wjjlVDbsEznkVDdzKZnZe_M-ICelrGg9LROGN5_JgWi2FZIfErGI_TBh9FhmKc7uLh5m9xPEMfTBwxiqBLGbLeKIeZNxfJaOyX4PQ8GTl_uI_Lq8eDi_nt_cXi3Of97MvWzbcc6pMl5713umAIxgbYNCaw9CqNpXwxUH53puZDVBr13XaRRt1zLlW-e8OCKLHbdLsLKbHNaQ_9oEwT4LKS8t5LqBAa1H47gyhjMEiVQYQI-yU9J5R7VUlXW2Y20mt8bOYxwzDO-g739i-G2X6Y81RjOqaAV8fwHk9DhhGe06FI_DABHTVCxXQhitpZHV-u0_6ypNOdZVbV1cc1mR1SV2Lp9TKRn712YYtduM7QcZ16qvb-d4rfmXqHgCrmmlNg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2632724710</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation</title><source>PubMed (Medline)</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><creator>Rogasch, Julian M M ; Hofheinz, Frank ; van Heek, Lutz ; Voltin, Conrad-Amadeus ; Boellaard, Ronald ; Kobe, Carsten</creator><creatorcontrib>Rogasch, Julian M M ; Hofheinz, Frank ; van Heek, Lutz ; Voltin, Conrad-Amadeus ; Boellaard, Ronald ; Kobe, Carsten</creatorcontrib><description>Various factors have been identified that influence quantitative accuracy and image interpretation in positron emission tomography (PET). Through the continuous introduction of new PET technology-both imaging hardware and reconstruction software-into clinical care, we now find ourselves in a transition period in which traditional and new technologies coexist. The effects on the clinical value of PET imaging and its interpretation in routine clinical practice require careful reevaluation. In this review, we provide a comprehensive summary of important factors influencing quantification and interpretation with a focus on recent developments in PET technology. Finally, we discuss the relationship between quantitative accuracy and subjective image interpretation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2075-4418</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2075-4418</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12020451</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35204542</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Biodistribution ; Body mass index ; contrast recovery ; Glucose ; image interpretation ; image quality ; Influence ; Insulin ; Medical imaging ; Noise ; Physiology ; positron emission tomography ; Prostate ; quantitative accuracy ; Review ; Scanners ; signal-to-noise ratio ; Tomography ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>Diagnostics (Basel), 2022-02, Vol.12 (2), p.451</ispartof><rights>2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 by the authors. 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-2068c7cbfc16aa83195e377ca3364415262abbf2847cbaf7bdd7e39d916c9bbc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-2068c7cbfc16aa83195e377ca3364415262abbf2847cbaf7bdd7e39d916c9bbc3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5437-3959 ; 0000-0002-0817-6532</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2632724710/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2632724710?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793,75126</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35204542$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rogasch, Julian M M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hofheinz, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Heek, Lutz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Voltin, Conrad-Amadeus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boellaard, Ronald</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kobe, Carsten</creatorcontrib><title>Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation</title><title>Diagnostics (Basel)</title><addtitle>Diagnostics (Basel)</addtitle><description>Various factors have been identified that influence quantitative accuracy and image interpretation in positron emission tomography (PET). Through the continuous introduction of new PET technology-both imaging hardware and reconstruction software-into clinical care, we now find ourselves in a transition period in which traditional and new technologies coexist. The effects on the clinical value of PET imaging and its interpretation in routine clinical practice require careful reevaluation. In this review, we provide a comprehensive summary of important factors influencing quantification and interpretation with a focus on recent developments in PET technology. Finally, we discuss the relationship between quantitative accuracy and subjective image interpretation.</description><subject>Biodistribution</subject><subject>Body mass index</subject><subject>contrast recovery</subject><subject>Glucose</subject><subject>image interpretation</subject><subject>image quality</subject><subject>Influence</subject><subject>Insulin</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Noise</subject><subject>Physiology</subject><subject>positron emission tomography</subject><subject>Prostate</subject><subject>quantitative accuracy</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Scanners</subject><subject>signal-to-noise ratio</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>2075-4418</issn><issn>2075-4418</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptkV1LHDEUhkNRqqi_oFAWetObrfmaJHMjFPFjQVDBXoeTzJltltlkTWYK_fdmXStazE3Cm_c8nHNeQr4w-kOIlp52AZYxlTH4wjjlVDbsEznkVDdzKZnZe_M-ICelrGg9LROGN5_JgWi2FZIfErGI_TBh9FhmKc7uLh5m9xPEMfTBwxiqBLGbLeKIeZNxfJaOyX4PQ8GTl_uI_Lq8eDi_nt_cXi3Of97MvWzbcc6pMl5713umAIxgbYNCaw9CqNpXwxUH53puZDVBr13XaRRt1zLlW-e8OCKLHbdLsLKbHNaQ_9oEwT4LKS8t5LqBAa1H47gyhjMEiVQYQI-yU9J5R7VUlXW2Y20mt8bOYxwzDO-g739i-G2X6Y81RjOqaAV8fwHk9DhhGe06FI_DABHTVCxXQhitpZHV-u0_6ypNOdZVbV1cc1mR1SV2Lp9TKRn712YYtduM7QcZ16qvb-d4rfmXqHgCrmmlNg</recordid><startdate>20220210</startdate><enddate>20220210</enddate><creator>Rogasch, Julian M M</creator><creator>Hofheinz, Frank</creator><creator>van Heek, Lutz</creator><creator>Voltin, Conrad-Amadeus</creator><creator>Boellaard, Ronald</creator><creator>Kobe, Carsten</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><general>MDPI</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5437-3959</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0817-6532</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220210</creationdate><title>Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation</title><author>Rogasch, Julian M M ; Hofheinz, Frank ; van Heek, Lutz ; Voltin, Conrad-Amadeus ; Boellaard, Ronald ; Kobe, Carsten</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-2068c7cbfc16aa83195e377ca3364415262abbf2847cbaf7bdd7e39d916c9bbc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Biodistribution</topic><topic>Body mass index</topic><topic>contrast recovery</topic><topic>Glucose</topic><topic>image interpretation</topic><topic>image quality</topic><topic>Influence</topic><topic>Insulin</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Noise</topic><topic>Physiology</topic><topic>positron emission tomography</topic><topic>Prostate</topic><topic>quantitative accuracy</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Scanners</topic><topic>signal-to-noise ratio</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rogasch, Julian M M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hofheinz, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Heek, Lutz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Voltin, Conrad-Amadeus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boellaard, Ronald</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kobe, Carsten</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Diagnostics (Basel)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rogasch, Julian M M</au><au>Hofheinz, Frank</au><au>van Heek, Lutz</au><au>Voltin, Conrad-Amadeus</au><au>Boellaard, Ronald</au><au>Kobe, Carsten</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation</atitle><jtitle>Diagnostics (Basel)</jtitle><addtitle>Diagnostics (Basel)</addtitle><date>2022-02-10</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>451</spage><pages>451-</pages><issn>2075-4418</issn><eissn>2075-4418</eissn><abstract>Various factors have been identified that influence quantitative accuracy and image interpretation in positron emission tomography (PET). Through the continuous introduction of new PET technology-both imaging hardware and reconstruction software-into clinical care, we now find ourselves in a transition period in which traditional and new technologies coexist. The effects on the clinical value of PET imaging and its interpretation in routine clinical practice require careful reevaluation. In this review, we provide a comprehensive summary of important factors influencing quantification and interpretation with a focus on recent developments in PET technology. Finally, we discuss the relationship between quantitative accuracy and subjective image interpretation.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><pmid>35204542</pmid><doi>10.3390/diagnostics12020451</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5437-3959</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0817-6532</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2075-4418
ispartof Diagnostics (Basel), 2022-02, Vol.12 (2), p.451
issn 2075-4418
2075-4418
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_ce8b268821ea4e038aece4d64bcb0746
source PubMed (Medline); Publicly Available Content Database
subjects Biodistribution
Body mass index
contrast recovery
Glucose
image interpretation
image quality
Influence
Insulin
Medical imaging
Noise
Physiology
positron emission tomography
Prostate
quantitative accuracy
Review
Scanners
signal-to-noise ratio
Tomography
Tumors
title Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T09%3A14%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Influences%20on%20PET%20Quantification%20and%20Interpretation&rft.jtitle=Diagnostics%20(Basel)&rft.au=Rogasch,%20Julian%20M%20M&rft.date=2022-02-10&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=451&rft.pages=451-&rft.issn=2075-4418&rft.eissn=2075-4418&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/diagnostics12020451&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2633877484%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-2068c7cbfc16aa83195e377ca3364415262abbf2847cbaf7bdd7e39d916c9bbc3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2632724710&rft_id=info:pmid/35204542&rfr_iscdi=true