% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Filss:836953,
author = {Filss, Christian and Albert, Nathalie L. and Böning, Guido
and Rota Kops, Elena and Suchorska, Bogdana and Stoffels,
Gabriele and Galldiks, Norbert and Shah, Nadim J. and
Mottaghy, Felix M. and Bartenstein, Peter and Tonn, Jörg C.
and Langen, Karl-Josef},
title = {{O}-(2-[$^{18}${F}]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine {PET} in
gliomas: influence of data processing in different centres},
journal = {EJNMMI Research},
volume = {7},
number = {1},
issn = {2191-219X},
address = {Berlin},
publisher = {Springer},
reportid = {FZJ-2017-05975},
pages = {64},
year = {2017},
abstract = {BackgroundPET using O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine
(18F-FET) is an established method for brain tumour
diagnostics, but data processing varies in different
centres. This study analyses the influence of methodological
differences between two centres for tumour characterization
with 18F-FET PET using the same PET scanner.Methodological
differences between centres A and B in the evaluation of
18F-FET PET data were identified for (1) framing of PET
dynamic data, (2) data reconstruction, (3) cut-off values
for tumour delineation to determine tumour-to-brain ratios
(TBR) and tumour volume (Tvol) and (4) ROI definition to
determine time activity curves (TACs) in the tumour. Based
on the 18F-FET PET data of 40 patients with untreated
cerebral gliomas (20 WHO grade II, 10 WHO grade III, 10 WHO
grade IV), the effect of different data processing in the
two centres on TBRmean, TBRmax, Tvol, time-to-peak (TTP) and
slope of the TAC was compared. Further, the effect on tumour
grading was evaluated by ROC analysis.ResultsSignificant
differences between centres A and B were found especially
for TBRmax (2.84 ± 0.99 versus 3.34 ± 1.13; p < 0.001),
Tvol (1.14 ± 1.28 versus 1.51 ± 1.44; p < 0.001) and TTP
(22.4 ± 8.3 min versus 30.8 ± 6.3 min; p < 0.001) and
minor differences for TBRmean and slope. Tumour grading was
not influenced by different data
processing.ConclusionsVariable data processing of 18F-FET
PET in different centres leads to significant differences
especially for TBRmax and Tvol. A standardization of data
processing and evaluation is needed to make 18F-FET PET
comparable between different centres.},
cin = {INM-3 / INM-4},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406 / I:(DE-Juel1)INM-4-20090406},
pnm = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000407811100002},
doi = {10.1186/s13550-017-0316-x},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/836953},
}