Abstract. Image heterogeneity metrics such as textural features are an active area of research for evaluating clinical outcomes with positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and other modalities. However, the effects of stochastic image acquisition noise on these metrics are poorly understood. We performed a simulation study by generating 50 statistically independent PET images of the NEMA IQ phantom with realistic noise and resolution properties. Heterogeneity metrics based on gray-level intensity histograms, co-occurrence matrices, neighborhood difference matrices, and zone size matrices were evaluated within regions of interest surrounding the lesions. The impact of stochastic variability was evaluated with percent difference from the mean of the 50 realizations, coefficient of variation and estimated sample size for clinical trials. Additionally, sensitivity studies were performed to simulate the effects of patient size and image reconstruction method on the quantitative performance of these metrics. Complex trends in variability were revealed as a function of textural feature, lesion size, patient size, and reconstruction parameters. In conclusion, the sensitivity of PET textural features to normal stochastic image variation and imaging parameters can be large and is feature-dependent. Standards are needed to ensure that prospective studies that incorporate textural features are properly designed to measure true effects that may impact clinical outcomes.

This study investigates measurement biases in longitudinal positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) studies that are due to instrumentation variability including human error. Improved estimation of variability between patient scans is of particular importance for assessing response to therapy and multicenter trials. We used National Institute of Standards and Technology-traceable calibration methodology for solid germanium-68/gallium-68 ((68)Ge/(68)Ga) sources used as surrogates for fluorine-18 ((18)F) in radionuclide activity calibrators. One cross-calibration kit was constructed for both dose calibrators and PET scanners using the same 9-month half-life batch of (68)Ge/(68)Ga in epoxy. Repeat measurements occurred in a local network of PET imaging sites to assess standardized uptake value (SUV) errors over time for six dose calibrators from two major manufacturers and for six PET/CT scanners from three major manufacturers. Bias in activity measures by dose calibrators ranged from -50% to 9% and was relatively stable over time except at one site that modified settings between measurements. Bias in activity concentration measures by PET scanners ranged from -27% to 13% with a median of 174 days between the six repeat scans (range, 29 to 226 days). Corresponding errors in SUV measurements ranged from -20% to 47%. SUV biases were not stable over time with longitudinal differences for individual scanners ranging from -11% to 59%. Bias in SUV measurements varied over time and between scanner sites. These results suggest that attention should be paid to PET scanner calibration for longitudinal studies and use of dose calibrator and scanner cross-calibration kits could be helpful for quality assurance and control.

Calibration and reproducibility of quantitative 18 F-FDG PET measures are essential for adopting integral 18 F-FDG PET/CT biomarkers and response measures in multicenter clinical trials. We implemented a multicenter qualification process using National Institute of Standards and Technology-traceable reference sources for scanners and dose calibrators, and similar patient and imaging protocols. We then assessed SUV in patient test-retest studies. Methods: Five 18 F-FDG PET/CT scanners from 4 institutions (2 in a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center, 3 in a community-based network) were qualified for study use. Patients were scanned twice within 15 d, on the same scanner (n 5 10); different but same model scanners within an institution (n 5 2); or different model scanners at different institutions (n 5 11). SUV max was recorded for lesions, and SUV mean for normal liver uptake. Linear mixed models with random intercept were fitted to evaluate test-retest differences in multiple lesions per patient and to estimate the concordance correlation coefficient. Bland-Altman plots and repeatability coefficients were also produced. Results: In total, 162 lesions (82 bone, 80 soft tissue) were assessed in patients with breast cancer (n 5 17) or other cancers (n 5 6). Repeat scans within the same institution, using the same scanner or 2 scanners of the same model, had an average difference in SUV max of 8% (95% confidence interval, 6%-10%). For test-retest on different scanners at different sites, the average difference in lesion SUV max was 18% (95% confidence interval, 13%-24%). Normal liver uptake (SUV mean ) showed an average difference of 5% (95% confidence interval, 3%-10%) for the same scanner model or institution and 6% (95% confidence interval, 3%-11%) for different scanners from different institutions. Protocol adherence was good; the median difference in injection-to-acquisition time was 2 min (range, 0-11 min). Test-retest SUV max variability was not explained by available information on protocol deviations or patient or lesion characteristics. Conclusion: 18 F-FDG PET/CT scanner qualification and calibration can yield highly reproducible test-retest tumor SUV measurements. Our data support use of different qualified scanners of the same model for serial studies. Test-retest differences from different scanner models were greater; more resolution-dependent harmonization of scanner protocols and reconstruction algorithms may be capable of reducing these differences to values closer to same-scanner results. by on August 3, 2020. For personal use only. jnm.snmjournals.org Downloaded from FIGURE 4. Bland-Altman plot of liver SUV mean (n 5 23). Light-green circles 5 same scanner; dark-green circles 5 different scanners from same site; gray circles 5 different scanner models from different sites; dashed lines 5 average difference and 95% limits of agreement.

Quantitative PET imaging is an important tool for clinical trials evaluating the response of cancers to investigational therapies. The standardized uptake value, used as a quantitative imaging biomarker, is dependent on multiple parameters that may contribute bias and variability. The use of long-lived, sealed PET calibration phantoms offers the advantages of known radioactivity activity concentration and simpler use than aqueous phantoms. We evaluated scanner and dose calibrator sources from two batches of commercially available kits, together at a single site and distributed across a local multicenter PET imaging network. We found that radioactivity concentration was uniform within the phantoms. Within the regions of interest drawn in the phantom images, coefficients of variation of voxel values were less than 2%. Across phantoms, coefficients of variation for mean signal were close to 1%. Biases of the standardized uptake value estimated with the kits varied by site and were seen to change in time by approximately ±5%. We conclude that these biases cannot be assumed constant over time. The kits provide a robust method to monitor PET scanner and dose calibrator biases, and resulting biases in standardized uptake values.