The aim of this guideline is to provide standards for the recommendation, performance, interpretation and reporting of Ga-PSMA PET/CT for prostate cancer imaging. These recommendations will help to improve accuracy, precision, and repeatability ofGa-PSMA PET/CT for prostate cancer essentially needed for implementation of this modality in science and routine clinical practice.

Human brown adipose tissue (BAT) presence, metabolic activity and estimated mass are typically measured by imaging [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in response to cold exposure in regions of the body expected to contain BAT, using positron emission tomography combined with x-ray computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT). Efforts to describe the epidemiology and biology of human BAT are hampered by diverse experimental practices, making it difficult to directly compare results among laboratories. An expert panel was assembled by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases on November 4, 2014 to discuss minimal requirements for conducting FDG-PET/CT experiments of human BAT, data analysis, and publication of results. This resulted in Brown Adipose Reporting Criteria in Imaging STudies (BARCIST 1.0). Since there are no fully-validated best practices at this time, panel recommendations are meant to enhance comparability across experiments, but not to constrain experimental design or the questions that can be asked.

No abstract

The Uniform Protocols for Imaging in Clinical Trials (UPICT) 18F-FDG PET/CT protocol is intended to guide the performance of whole-body FDG PET/CT studies within the context of single- and multiple-center clinical trials of oncologic therapies by providing acceptable (minimum), target, and ideal standards for all phases of imaging. The aim is to minimize variability in intra- and intersubject, intra- and inter-platform, interexamination, and interinstitutional primary or derived data. The goal of this condensed version of the much larger document is to make readers aware of the general content and subject area. The document has several main subjects: context of the imaging protocol within the clinical trial; site selection, qualification, and training; subject scheduling; subject preparation; imaging-related substance preparation and administration; imaging procedure; image postprocessing; image analysis; image interpretation; archiving and distribution of data; quality control; and imaging-associated risks and risk management.

The Clinical Trials Network (CTN) of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) operates a PET/CT phantom imaging program using the CTN's oncology clinical simulator phantom, designed to validate scanners at sites that wish to participate in oncology clinical trials. Since its inception in 2008, the CTN has collected 406 well-characterized phantom datasets from 237 scanners at 170 imaging sites covering the spectrum of commercially available PET/CT systems. The combined and collated phantom data describe a global profile of quantitative performance and variability of PET/CT data used in both clinical practice and clinical trials. Methods: Individual sites filled and imaged the CTN oncology PET phantom according to detailed instructions. Standard clinical reconstructions were requested and submitted. The phantom itself contains uniform regions suitable for scanner calibration assessment, lung fields, and 6 hot spheric lesions with diameters ranging from 7 to 20 mm at a 4:1 contrast ratio with primary background. The CTN Phantom Imaging Core evaluated the quality of the phantom fill and imaging and measured background standardized uptake values to assess scanner calibration and maximum standardized uptake values of all 6 lesions to review quantitative performance. Scanner make-and-modelspecific measurements were pooled and then subdivided by reconstruction to create scanner-specific quantitative profiles. Results: Different makes and models of scanners predictably demonstrated different quantitative performance profiles including, in some cases, small calibration bias. Differences in site-specific reconstruction parameters increased the quantitative variability among similar scanners, with postreconstruction smoothing filters being the most influential parameter. Quantitative assessment of this intrascanner variability over this large collection of phantom data gives, for the first time, estimates of reconstruction variance introduced into trials from allowing trial sites to use their preferred reconstruction methodologies. Predictably, time-of-flight-enabled scanners exhibited less size-based partialvolume bias than non-time-of-flight scanners. Conclusion: The CTN scanner validation experience over the past 5 y has generated a rich, well-curated phantom dataset from which PET/CT make-and-model and reconstruction-dependent quantitative behaviors were characterized for the purposes of understanding and estimating scanner-based variances in clinical trials. These results should make it possible to identify and recommend make-and-model-specific reconstruction strategies to minimize measurement variability in cancer clinical trials. Mul ticenter oncology clinical trials are increasingly using PET/CT imaging as primary and secondary endpoints to define success or failure of treatment regimens, with considerable effort expended in understanding reproducibility and variability (1-11). PET, as an inherently quantitative imaging technique, is arguably the most powerful imaging modality available to resea...