The purpose of these guidelines is to assist physicians in recommending, performing, interpreting and reporting the results of FDG PET/CT for oncological imaging of adult patients. PET is a quantitative imaging technique and therefore requires a common quality control (QC)/quality assurance (QA) procedure to maintain the accuracy and precision of quantitation. Repeatability and reproducibility are two essential requirements for any quantitative measurement and/or imaging biomarker. Repeatability relates to the uncertainty in obtaining the same result in the same patient when he or she is examined more than once on the same system. However, imaging biomarkers should also have adequate reproducibility, i.e. the ability to yield the same result in the same patient when that patient is examined on different systems and at different imaging sites. Adequate repeatability and reproducibility are essential for the clinical management of patients and the use of FDG PET/CT within multicentre trials. A common standardised imaging procedure will help promote the appropriate use of FDG PET/CT imaging and increase the value of publications and, therefore, their contribution to evidence-based medicine. Moreover, consistency in numerical values between platforms and institutes that acquire the data will potentially enhance the role of semiquantitative and quantitative image interpretation. Precision and accuracy are additionally important as FDG PET/CT is used to evaluate tumour response as well as for diagnosis, prognosis and staging. Therefore both the previous and these new guidelines specifically aim to achieve standardised uptake value harmonisation in multicentre settings.

The Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative validated consensus-based reference values for 169 radiomics features, thus enabling calibration and verification of radiomics software. Key results: • research teams found agreement for calculation of 169 radiomics features derived from a digital phantom and a human lung cancer on CT scan. • Of these 169 candidate radiomics features, good to excellent reproducibility was achieved for 167 radiomics features using MRI, 18F-FDG PET and CT images obtained in 51 patients with soft-tissue sarcoma.

The aim of this guideline is to provide a minimum standard for the acquisition and interpretation of PET and PET/CT scans with [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). This guideline will therefore address general information about [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) and is provided to help the physician and physicist to assist to carrying out, interpret, and document quantitative FDG PET/CT examinations, but will concentrate on the optimisation of diagnostic quality and quantitative information.

Imaging biomarkers (IBs) are integral to the routine management of patients with cancer. IBs used daily in oncology include clinical TNM stage, objective response and left ventricular ejection fraction. Other CT, MRI, PET and ultrasonography biomarkers are used extensively in cancer research and drug development. New IBs need to be established either as useful tools for testing research hypotheses in clinical trials and research studies, or as clinical decision-making tools for use in healthcare, by crossing ‘translational gaps’ through validation and qualification. Important differences exist between IBs and biospecimen-derived biomarkers and, therefore, the development of IBs requires a tailored ‘roadmap’. Recognizing this need, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) assembled experts to review, debate and summarize the challenges of IB validation and qualification. This consensus group has produced 14 key recommendations for accelerating the clinical translation of IBs, which highlight the role of parallel (rather than sequential) tracks of technical (assay) validation, biological/clinical validation and assessment of cost-effectiveness; the need for IB standardization and accreditation systems; the need to continually revisit IB precision; an alternative framework for biological/clinical validation of IBs; and the essential requirements for multicentre studies to qualify IBs for clinical use.

Quantitative 18 F-FDG PET is increasingly being recognized as an important tool for diagnosis, determination of prognosis, and response monitoring in oncology. However, PET quantification with, for example, standardized uptake values (SUVs) is affected by many technical and physiologic factors. As a result, some of the variations in the literature on SUV-based patient outcomes are explained by differences in 18 F-FDG PET study methods. Various technical and clinical studies have been performed to understand the factors affecting PET quantification. On the basis of the results of those studies, several recommendations and guidelines have been proposed with the aims of improving the image quality and the quantitative accuracy of 18 F-FDG PET studies. In this contribution, an overview of recommendations and guidelines for quantitative 18 F-FDG PET studies in oncology is provided. Special attention is given to the rationale underlying certain recommendations and to some of the differences in various guidelines.

Purpose Besides basic measurements as maximum standardized uptake value (SUV)max or SUVmean derived from 18F-FDG positron emission tomography (PET) scans, more advanced quantitative imaging features (i.e. “Radiomics” features) are increasingly investigated for treatment monitoring, outcome prediction, or as potential biomarkers. With these prospected applications of Radiomics features, it is a requisite that they provide robust and reliable measurements. The aim of our study was therefore to perform an integrated stability analysis of a large number of PET-derived features in non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), based on both a test-retest and an inter-observer setup. Methods Eleven NSCLC patients were included in the test-retest cohort. Patients underwent repeated PET imaging within a one day interval, before any treatment was delivered. Lesions were delineated by applying a threshold of 50% of the maximum uptake value within the tumor. Twenty-three NSCLC patients were included in the inter-observer cohort. Patients underwent a diagnostic whole body PET-computed tomography (CT). Lesions were manually delineated based on fused PET-CT, using a standardized clinical delineation protocol. Delineation was performed independently by five observers, blinded to each other. Fifteen first order statistics, 39 descriptors of intensity volume histograms, eight geometric features and 44 textural features were extracted. For every feature, test-retest and inter-observer stability was assessed with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the coefficient of variability, normalized to mean and range. Similarity between test-retest and inter-observer stability rankings of features was assessed with Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Results Results showed that the majority of assessed features had both a high test-retest (71%) and inter-observer (91%) stability in terms of their ICC. Overall, features more stable in repeated PET imaging were also found to be more robust against inter-observer variability. Conclusion Results suggest that further research of quantitative imaging features is warranted with respect to more advanced applications of PET imaging as being used for treatment monitoring, outcome prediction or imaging biomarkers.

No abstract

FDG-PET-derived textural features describing intra-tumor heterogeneity are increasingly investigated as imaging biomarkers. As part of the process of quantifying heterogeneity, image intensities (SUVs) are typically resampled into a reduced number of discrete bins. We focused on the implications of the manner in which this discretization is implemented. Two methods were evaluated: (1) RD, dividing the SUV range into D equally spaced bins, where the intensity resolution (i.e. bin size) varies per image; and (2) RB, maintaining a constant intensity resolution B. Clinical feasibility was assessed on 35 lung cancer patients, imaged before and in the second week of radiotherapy. Forty-four textural features were determined for different D and B for both imaging time points. Feature values depended on the intensity resolution and out of both assessed methods, RB was shown to allow for a meaningful inter- and intra-patient comparison of feature values. Overall, patients ranked differently according to feature values–which was used as a surrogate for textural feature interpretation–between both discretization methods. Our study shows that the manner of SUV discretization has a crucial effect on the resulting textural features and the interpretation thereof, emphasizing the importance of standardized methodology in tumor texture analysis.