Differences among [18F]FDG PET-derived parameters in lung cancer produced by three software packages

Abstract Investigation of differences in derived [18F]FDG PET metabolic and volumetric parameters among three different software programs in lung cancer. A retrospective analysis was performed on a group of 98 lung cancer patients who underwent a baseline [18F]FDG PET/CT study. To assess appropriate...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Agnieszka Bos-Liedke, Paulina Cegla, Krzysztof Matuszewski, Ewelina Konstanty, Adam Piotrowski, Magdalena Gross, Julian Malicki, Maciej Kozak
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/9fb5b17575a844b5af15c3da8e60c0eb
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:9fb5b17575a844b5af15c3da8e60c0eb
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:9fb5b17575a844b5af15c3da8e60c0eb2021-12-02T16:15:07ZDifferences among [18F]FDG PET-derived parameters in lung cancer produced by three software packages10.1038/s41598-021-93436-w2045-2322https://doaj.org/article/9fb5b17575a844b5af15c3da8e60c0eb2021-07-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93436-whttps://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract Investigation of differences in derived [18F]FDG PET metabolic and volumetric parameters among three different software programs in lung cancer. A retrospective analysis was performed on a group of 98 lung cancer patients who underwent a baseline [18F]FDG PET/CT study. To assess appropriate delineation methods, the NEMA phantom study was first performed using the following software: Philips EBW (Extended Brilliance Workstation), MIM Software and Rover. Based on this study, the best cut-off methods (dependent on tumour size) were selected, extracted and applied for lung cancer delineation. Several semiquantitative [18F]FDG parameters (SUVmax, SUVmean, TLG and MTV) were assessed and compared among the three software programs. The parameters were assessed based on body weight (BW), lean body mass (LBM) and Bq/mL. Statistically significant differences were found in SUVmean (LBM) between MIM Software and Rover (4.62 ± 2.15 vs 4.84 ± 1.20; p < 0.005), in SUVmean (Bq/mL) between Rover and Philips EBW (21,852.30 ± 21,821.23 vs 19,274.81 ± 13,340.28; p < 0.005) and Rover and MIM Software (21,852.30 ± 21,821.23 vs 19,399.40 ± 10,051.30; p < 0.005), and in MTV between MIM Software and Philips EBW (19.87 ± 25.83 vs 78.82 ± 228.00; p = 0.0489). This study showed statistically significant differences in the estimation of semiquantitative parameters using three independent image analysis tools. These findings are important for performing further diagnostic and treatment procedures in lung cancer patients.Agnieszka Bos-LiedkePaulina CeglaKrzysztof MatuszewskiEwelina KonstantyAdam PiotrowskiMagdalena GrossJulian MalickiMaciej KozakNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-8 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Agnieszka Bos-Liedke Paulina Cegla Krzysztof Matuszewski Ewelina Konstanty Adam Piotrowski Magdalena Gross Julian Malicki Maciej Kozak Differences among [18F]FDG PET-derived parameters in lung cancer produced by three software packages
description	Abstract Investigation of differences in derived [18F]FDG PET metabolic and volumetric parameters among three different software programs in lung cancer. A retrospective analysis was performed on a group of 98 lung cancer patients who underwent a baseline [18F]FDG PET/CT study. To assess appropriate delineation methods, the NEMA phantom study was first performed using the following software: Philips EBW (Extended Brilliance Workstation), MIM Software and Rover. Based on this study, the best cut-off methods (dependent on tumour size) were selected, extracted and applied for lung cancer delineation. Several semiquantitative [18F]FDG parameters (SUVmax, SUVmean, TLG and MTV) were assessed and compared among the three software programs. The parameters were assessed based on body weight (BW), lean body mass (LBM) and Bq/mL. Statistically significant differences were found in SUVmean (LBM) between MIM Software and Rover (4.62 ± 2.15 vs 4.84 ± 1.20; p < 0.005), in SUVmean (Bq/mL) between Rover and Philips EBW (21,852.30 ± 21,821.23 vs 19,274.81 ± 13,340.28; p < 0.005) and Rover and MIM Software (21,852.30 ± 21,821.23 vs 19,399.40 ± 10,051.30; p < 0.005), and in MTV between MIM Software and Philips EBW (19.87 ± 25.83 vs 78.82 ± 228.00; p = 0.0489). This study showed statistically significant differences in the estimation of semiquantitative parameters using three independent image analysis tools. These findings are important for performing further diagnostic and treatment procedures in lung cancer patients.
format	article
author	Agnieszka Bos-Liedke Paulina Cegla Krzysztof Matuszewski Ewelina Konstanty Adam Piotrowski Magdalena Gross Julian Malicki Maciej Kozak
author_facet	Agnieszka Bos-Liedke Paulina Cegla Krzysztof Matuszewski Ewelina Konstanty Adam Piotrowski Magdalena Gross Julian Malicki Maciej Kozak
author_sort	Agnieszka Bos-Liedke
title	Differences among [18F]FDG PET-derived parameters in lung cancer produced by three software packages
title_short	Differences among [18F]FDG PET-derived parameters in lung cancer produced by three software packages
title_full	Differences among [18F]FDG PET-derived parameters in lung cancer produced by three software packages
title_fullStr	Differences among [18F]FDG PET-derived parameters in lung cancer produced by three software packages
title_full_unstemmed	Differences among [18F]FDG PET-derived parameters in lung cancer produced by three software packages
title_sort	differences among [18f]fdg pet-derived parameters in lung cancer produced by three software packages
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/9fb5b17575a844b5af15c3da8e60c0eb
work_keys_str_mv	AT agnieszkabosliedke differencesamong18ffdgpetderivedparametersinlungcancerproducedbythreesoftwarepackages AT paulinacegla differencesamong18ffdgpetderivedparametersinlungcancerproducedbythreesoftwarepackages AT krzysztofmatuszewski differencesamong18ffdgpetderivedparametersinlungcancerproducedbythreesoftwarepackages AT ewelinakonstanty differencesamong18ffdgpetderivedparametersinlungcancerproducedbythreesoftwarepackages AT adampiotrowski differencesamong18ffdgpetderivedparametersinlungcancerproducedbythreesoftwarepackages AT magdalenagross differencesamong18ffdgpetderivedparametersinlungcancerproducedbythreesoftwarepackages AT julianmalicki differencesamong18ffdgpetderivedparametersinlungcancerproducedbythreesoftwarepackages AT maciejkozak differencesamong18ffdgpetderivedparametersinlungcancerproducedbythreesoftwarepackages
_version_	1718384307637059584

Differences among [18F]FDG PET-derived parameters in lung cancer produced by three software packages

Ejemplares similares