EORTC PET response criteria are more influenced by reconstruction inconsistencies than PERCIST but both benefit from the EARL harmonization program
- Charline Lasnon1, 2,
- Elske Quak1,
- Pierre-Yves Le Roux3,
- Philippe Robin3,
- Michael S. Hofman4,
- David Bourhis3,
- Jason Callahan4,
- David S. Binns4,
- Cédric Desmonts5,
- Pierre-Yves Salaun3,
- Rodney J. Hicks†4, 6 and
- Nicolas Aide†2, 5, 7, 8Email authorView ORCID ID profile
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 7 April 2017
Accepted: 19 May 2017
Published: 30 May 2017
This study evaluates the consistency of PET evaluation response criteria in solid tumours (PERCIST) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) classification across different reconstruction algorithms and whether aligning standardized uptake values (SUVs) to the European Association of Nuclear Medicine acquisition (EANM)/EARL standards provides more consistent response classification.
Materials and methods
Baseline (PET1) and response assessment (PET2) scans in 61 patients with non-small cell lung cancer were acquired in protocols compliant with the EANM guidelines and were reconstructed with point-spread function (PSF) or PSF + time-of-flight (TOF) reconstruction for optimal tumour detection and with a standardized ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) reconstruction known to fulfil EANM harmonizing standards. Patients were recruited in three centres. Following reconstruction, EQ.PET, a proprietary software solution was applied to the PSF ± TOF data (PSF ± TOF.EQ) to harmonize SUVs to the EANM standards. The impact of differing reconstructions on PERCIST and EORTC classification was evaluated using standardized uptake values corrected for lean body mass (SUL).
Using OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 (standard scenario), responders displayed a reduction of −57.5% ± 23.4 and −63.9% ± 22.4 for SULmax and SULpeak, respectively, while progressing tumours had an increase of +63.4% ± 26.5 and +60.7% ± 19.6 for SULmax and SULpeak respectively. The use of PSF ± TOF reconstruction impacted the classification of tumour response. For example, taking the OSEMPET1/PSF ± TOFPET2 scenario reduced the apparent reduction in SUL in responding tumours (−39.7% ± 31.3 and −55.5% ± 26.3 for SULmax and SULpeak, respectively) but increased the apparent increase in SUL in progressing tumours (+130.0% ± 50.7 and +91.1% ± 39.6 for SULmax and SULpeak, respectively).
Consequently, variation in reconstruction methodology (PSF ± TOFPET1/OSEMPET2 or OSEM PET1/PSF ± TOFPET2) led, respectively, to 11/61 (18.0%) and 10/61 (16.4%) PERCIST classification discordances and to 17/61 (28.9%) and 19/61 (31.1%) EORTC classification discordances. An agreement was better for these scenarios with application of the propriety filter, with kappa values of 1.00 and 0.95 compared to 0.75 and 0.77 for PERCIST and kappa values of 0.93 and 0.95 compared to 0.61 and 0.55 for EORTC, respectively.
PERCIST classification is less sensitive to reconstruction algorithm-dependent variability than EORTC classification but harmonizing SULs within the EARL program is equally effective with either.
KeywordsPET 18F-FDG Therapy response PERCIST EORTC Harmonization
18F-FDG PET is increasingly being used for response evaluation in cancer patients, in clinical routine or in clinical trials [1–6]. Two main schemas based on the degree of standardized uptake value (SUV) change following treatment are currently used: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria  and PET evaluation response criteria in solid tumours (PERCIST) . However, many sources of error in SUV measurement exist [9–11]. In particular, technological improvements can lead to significant device-dependent and reconstruction-dependent variations in quantitative values [12–14]. This could lead to classification errors by exceeding thresholds used for discriminating between responding and non-responding tumours unless acquisition and processing of pre- and post-treatment scans are acquired on the same scanner and processed identically.
The European Association Research Ltd (EARL) accreditation program  is an SUV harmonization strategy aiming at minimizing the variability in SUV measurements by harmonizing patient preparation and scan acquisition and processing . While many sources of error in SUV measurements are overcome by complying with the EANM guidelines for PET tumour imaging [17–19], reconstruction-dependent variations require either the use of an additional filtering step  or the generation of two sets of images: one to provide optimal diagnostic quality and another to meet quantitative harmonization standards . Previous research from the collaborators in this study have shown that SUVmax is more sensitive to reconstruction inconsistency than SUVpeak  and that reconstruction inconsistencies may affect PERCIST classification . Consequently, one could expect a more significant impact of these inconsistencies on EORTC classification, which is based on SUVmax variation, than on PERCIST, which is based on SUVpeak.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of SUV reconstruction dependency on PERCIST and EORTC classification and the ability of the EARL program to minimize variability in response assessment. To assess this, we reconstructed the same PET raw data with an OSEM algorithm known to meet EANM requirements and also with PSF with or without TOF reconstruction (PSF ± TOF). Post-reconstruction filtering was then applied to the PSF ± TOF reconstruction with EQ.PET (Siemens Medical Solutions), a proprietary software solution allowing visualization of optimized images while simultaneously obtaining harmonized SUV values [20, 23].
Sixty-one patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were scanned for monitoring efficacy of chemotherapy, molecularly targeted therapies or radiotherapy were included. The cohort was comprised of 51 patients prospectively included in a multicentre study involving three PET centres and 10 patients included in a single-centre prospective study. Informed consent was waived for this type of study by the local ethics committee (Ref A12-D24-VOL13, Comité de protection des personnes Nord-Ouest III) since the scans were performed for clinical indications, and the study procedures were performed independently without influencing clinical reporting.
Patient’s sex ratio (male/female) was 2.4:1; mean ± SD age was 62.7 ± 9.4 years. The interval between the pre- and post-treatment PET scans was 103 ± 53 days. Fifty-eight (95.1%) patients underwent chemotherapy, 1 (1.6%) patient had radiotherapy and 2 (3.3%) patients were administered targeted therapies (TKI and immunotherapy).
Data from the following three PET systems were used for this study: a Biograph 6 TrueV with PSF reconstruction, a mCT with PSF + TOF, and a Biograph 64 TrueV with PSF reconstruction (Siemens Medical Solutions). Both the Biograph systems were equipped with an extended axial field-of-view.
Patient preparation, PET acquisition and reconstruction parameters
All patients were requested to fast for 6 h prior to the 18F-FDG injection. Patient height, weight and blood glucose levels were recorded. Patients were injected intravenously with 18F-FDG, followed by a 60 min rest in a warm room.
A daily calibration of each PET system was performed with a 68Ge source according to the manufacturer’s protocol. A quarterly cross-calibration of each PET system was performed according to the EANM guidelines, as described elsewhere [17, 18], and clocks from workstations were synchronized weekly.
PET/CT acquisition and reconstruction parameters for the three participating centres
Site and system
Centre 1 biograph 6
Centre 2 biograph mCT
Centre 3 biograph 6
Duration per bed position
2 min and 40 s (BMI ≤25) or 3 min and 40 s (BMI >25)
2 min and 00 s
2 min and 30 s (≤65 kg), 3 min (65–85 kg), 3 min and 30 s (85–100 kg), 4 min and 00 s (>100 kg)
PSF + TOF
168 × 168
168 × 168
200 × 200
200 × 200
168 × 168
168 × 168
168 × 168
168 × 168
4.07 × 4.07
4.07 × 4.07
4.07 × 4.07
4.07 × 4.07
3.39 × 3.39
3.39 × 3.39
3.39 × 3.39
3.39 × 3.39
For each PET system, the EQ.PET filter was calculated on the phantom data of each PSF ± TOF reconstruction as described in details elsewhere . Briefly, the recovery coefficients (RCs; defined as the ratio between the measured and true activity concentration for each sphere) of a National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU2 phantom scanned as per EANM guidelines were aligned to the EANM reference RCs by applying a Gaussian filter.
PERCIST and EORTC evaluation
All PET exams were analyzed on Syngo.via software equipped with EQ.PET (Siemens Medical Solutions). For interpretation purposes, both the reconstruction for optimal lesion detection (PSF ± TOF) and the OSEM reconstruction were displayed on the screen together with the EQ.PET-filtered harmonized SUV results for the tumour region(s) of interest. The EQ.PET-filtered images were not displayed on the screen.
For PERCIST criteria , the measurable target lesion is the single most intense tumour site on pre- and post-treatment scans, which means that the target lesion is not necessarily the same pre- and post-treatment. As per EORTC PET response criteria, the volumes of interest (VOI) should involve the same tumour lesion on pre- and post-treatment scan.
In practice, the target lesion on baseline scan was chosen as the most intense lesion and located by scaling the 3D MIP view both on the OSEM and PSF ± TOF reconstructions. VOIs were drawn on one reconstruction and automatically propagated to the second set of reconstruction (propagation from OSEM to PSF ± TOF and vice versa). Within these volumes of interest, lean body mass SUVpeak (SULpeak) and SULmax were measured.
The same VOI methodology was used on the post-treatment scan, where the target lesion was chosen as the most intense lesion for PERCIST, while the same target lesion for baseline and post-treatment scans was used for EORTC classification.
Complete metabolic response (CMR): complete resolution of 18F-FDG uptake in the tumour volume, with tumour SUL lower than liver SUL and background blood pool, and disappearance of all lesions if multiple.
Partial metabolic response (PMR): at least 30% (PERCIST) or 25% (EORTC) reduction in tumour uptake.
Stable metabolic disease (SMD): less than 30% (PERCIST) or 25% (EORTC) increase, or less than 30 or 25% (EORTC) decrease in tumour 18F-FDG SULpeak and no new lesions.
Progressive metabolic disease (PMD): greater than 30% (PERCIST) or 25% (EORTC) increase in 18F-FDG tumour SULpeak within the tumour or appearance of new lesions.
Quantitative data from clinical PET/CT examinations are presented as mean (standard deviation ± SD). The relationship between PSF ± TOF, PSF ± TOF.EQ and OSEM quantitative values were assessed with Bland-Altman plots. Levels of agreement between the different types of reconstruction were evaluated using the kappa statistic. The use of OSEM reconstruction for both pre- and post-therapeutic PET examinations (OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2) was used as the “current standard” to classify the therapeutic response of each lesion and compared to other scenarios. Kappa values were reported using the benchmarks of Landis and Koch .
Graphs and analyses were carried out using Prism GraphPad and the Vassar University website for statistical computation (http://vassarstats.net).
Ability of the EQ.PET methodology to harmonize SUL assessments
Impact of reconstruction-dependent variation on SUL changes between baseline and post-treatment scans
The same target lesion for baseline and post-treatment scans was used for EORTC classification except for two patients. The first patient displayed a large tumoural and nodal complex for which the EQ.PET software was unable to differentiate nodes from a tumour on post-treatment scan. The second patient had a complete disappearance of the initial target lesion in a patient with multiple tumour lesions, requiring to use the hottest remaining lesion on post-treatment scan.
The use of PSF reconstruction impacted SULs, depending whether this reconstruction was used for the pre- or post-treatment scans. For example, OSEMPET1/PSF ± TOFPET2 scenario reduced the apparent reduction in SUL in responding tumours (−39.7% ± 31.3 and −55.5% ± 26.3 for SULmax and SULpeak, respectively) but increased the apparent increase in SUL in progressing tumours (+130.0% ± 50.7 and +91.1% ± 39.6 for SULmax and SULpeak, respectively) as compared to the OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 scenario described above. Accordingly, inconsistent reconstructions induced discordant response classifications amongst the different scenarios, as described in the section below.
Impact of reconstruction-dependent variation of SUL on PERCIST and EORTC evaluation
The agreement level between EORTC and PERCIST therapeutic evaluations was almost perfect with a kappa value equal of 0.84 (0.73–0.95). Eight discordances (13%) occurred: one patient classified as CMR with EORTC and PMR with PERCIST, one patient classified as PMR with EORTC and CMR with PERCIST, four patients classified as PMR with EORTC and SMD with PERCIST and one patient classified as SMD with EORTC and PD with PERCIST.
Agreement levels between the OSEM1/OSEM2 scenario and other scenarios involving reconstruction inconsistency for EORTC and PERCIST therapeutic evaluations
OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 vs OSEMPET1/PSF ± TOFPET2
OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 vs PSF ± TOFPET1/OSEMPET2
OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 vs OSEMPET1/PSF ± TOF.EQPET2
OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 vs PSF ± TOF.EQPET1/OSEMPET2
OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 vs PSF ± TOFPET1/PSF ± TOFPET2
OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 vs PSF ± TOF.EQPET1/PSF ± TOF.EQPET2
Number of discordances between the OSEM1/OSEM2 scenario and other scenarios involving reconstruction inconsistency for EORTC and PERCIST therapeutic evaluations
Numbers of discordances n (%)
OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 vs OSEMPET1/ PSF ± TOFPET2
OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 vs PSF ± TOFPET1/OSEMPET2
OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 vs OSEMPET1/ PSF ± TOF.EQPET2
OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 vs PSF ± TOF.EQPET1/OSEMPET2
OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 vs PSF ± TOFPET1/ PSF ± TOFPET2
OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 vs PSF ± TOF.EQPET1/ PSF ± TOF.EQPET2
Consistent reconstruction (i.e. the PSF ± TOFPET1/PSF ± TOFPET2 and PSF ± TOF.EQPET1/PSF ± TOF.EQPET2 scenarios) did not give a perfect agreement compared to the OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 standard of reference (Additional file 1: Figure S1). This was more pronounced for the EORTC classification in the PSF ± TOFPET1/PSF ± TOFPET2 scenario where six discordances occurred (Table 3), leading to a kappa value of 0.86 (Table 2).
In the framework of therapy monitoring with PET, pre- and post-treatment scans should ideally involve identical scan acquisition and image processing. However, this is often impractical in busy PET centres, especially those running several scanners. This can also be challenged by a scanner upgrade during the conduct of a trial or when a patient relocates. Previous studies aimed at validating the EARL harmonization strategy in the clinical setting have shown that SUVmax is more sensitive to reconstruction inconsistency than SUVpeak or their lean body mass equivalents, SULmax and SULpeak. Consequently, one could expect a more significant impact of reconstruction inconsistencies on EORTC classification than on PERCIST.
In the present study, we evaluated the impact of inconsistent reconstruction on both EORTC and PERCIST response classifications, demonstrating variation in up to 31% of cases for EORTC classification vs up to 18% for PERCIST classification. Further, we showed that applying the EARL harmonization strategy provided more consistent response classification with kappa values greater than 0.93 for all the scenarios involving harmonized SULs, compared to the OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 scenario used as a standard of reference. In line with its greater sensitivity to reconstruction inconsistencies, the EORTC classification benefited more from the EARL harmonization strategy, with kappa values increasing from 0.55 to 0.95 for the worst case scenario (OSEMPET1/PSF ± TOFPET2), compared with an improvement from 0.77 to 0.95 for PERCIST (Table 2).
This has practical advantages when there is variation of acquisition/reconstruction settings. This situation seems relatively common even in centres running the same PET system, as recently described by Sunderland and colleagues  in a survey involving 237 PET/CT systems in 170 international imaging centres with technology advancements spanning more than a decade, reporting that site-specific reconstruction parameters increased the quantitative variability of similar scanners, post-reconstruction smoothing filters being the most influential parameter. Harmonization has also practical advantages when the use of the same scanner for both scans is impractical, for instance in centres running two or more PET systems, as illustrated by the study by Skougaard et al. , in which 12 of 81 (14%) patients undergoing pre- and post-treatment PET in the same department were excluded for analysis because they were scanned on two different generation PET systems.
Taking, for example, the scenario of a system upgrade during a trial, the use of OSEM for the pre-treatment scan while using PSF ± TOF for the post-treatment scan led to discordant response assessments in 19/61 (31%) for EORTC classification and 10/61 (16%) for PERCIST (Table 3). Using a harmonization strategy (hereby aligning quantitative values to the EARL/EANM harmonizing standards with a proprietary filter, the EQ.PET methodology) either for the pre- or post-treatment scans gave almost perfect agreement levels in comparison with the OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 reference standard, with narrow confidence intervals. We observed only two discordances for the OSEMPET1/PSF ± TOF.EQPET2 vs OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 scenario for both the EORTC and PERCIST classifications and three discordances which occurred for the PSF ± TOF.EQPET1/OSEMPET2 vs OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 scenario for the EORTC classification. No discordance occurred for the PSF ± TOF.EQPET1/OSEMPET2 vs OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 scenario for PERCIST classification. The three discordances that occurred only with EORTC classification for the PSF ± TOF.EQPET1/OSEMPET2 were due to SULmax variations between the pre and post-treatment scans very close to the cut-off value of +25 or −25% with the standard scenario OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 resulting in changes from SMD to either PMR or PMD and vice versa for other scenarios.
It is noteworthy that consistent reconstruction (i.e. the PSF ± TOFPET1/PSF ± TOFPET2 and PSF ± TOF.EQPET1/ PSF ± TOF.EQPET2 scenarios) did not give perfect agreement compared to the OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 standard of reference. These discordances were due to PSF reconstruction increasing SUV metrics in the tumours while not impacting the background (blood pool and liver) [27, 28], leading to CMR being changed to PMR. Also, both the EORTC and PERCIST classifications were affected by %change in SUL close to +30%/+25% or −30%/−25% for the OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 scenario resulting in changes from SMD to either PMR or PMD and vice versa for other scenarios.
A limitation of this study is that we used EQ.PET, a software solution developed for and applied only to scanners and reconstruction algorithms of the company that developed this product. EQ.PET has not been validated for equipment from other manufacturers but has been shown to be as effective as the alternative approach of obtaining a second reconstruction dataset, as recommended by the EARL accreditation program for quantitation [29, 30]. The ability of this algorithm to correct for scans performed on different scanners and then processed with different reconstruction methods was not tested.
PERCIST classification is less sensitive to reconstruction algorithm-dependent variability than EORTC classification. The EORTC and PERCIST classifications would benefit from harmonization strategies such as the EARL accreditation program in multicentre studies or in sites equipped with multiple PET systems.
Study design: CL, EQ, PYL, RH; Study coordination: NA, CL; Data gathering: CL, EQ, PYL, PR, MH, DB, JC, DS, CD, PYS, RL, NA; Data analysis: CL, EQ, PYL, PR, NA; Manuscript writing: CL, NA, EQ, PYL, MH, RH. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was waived for this type of study by the local ethics committee (Ref A12-D24-VOL13, Comité de protection des personnes Nord-Ouest III), since the PET scans were performed for clinical indications and the trial procedures were performed independent of usual clinical reporting.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
- Bazan JG, Duan F, Snyder BS, Horng D, Graves EE, Siegel BA, et al. Metabolic tumor volume predicts overall survival and local control in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer treated in ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:17–24. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3520-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ho KC, Fang YD, Chung HW, Liu YC, Chang JW, Hou MM, et al. TLG-S criteria are superior to both EORTC and PERCIST for predicting outcomes in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma treated with erlotinib. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:2155–65. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3433-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hyun OJ, Luber BS, Leal JP, Wang H, Bolejack V, Schuetze SM, et al. Response to early treatment evaluated with 18F-FDG PET and PERCIST 1.0 predicts survival in patients with Ewing sarcoma family of tumors treated with a monoclonal antibody to the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:735–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Michl M, Lehner S, Paprottka PM, Ilhan H, Bartenstein P, Heinemann V, et al. Use of PERCIST for prediction of progression-free and overall survival after radioembolization for liver metastases from pancreatic cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:355–60. doi:https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.165613.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pinker K, Riedl CC, Ong L, Jochelson M, Ulaner GA, McArthur H, et al. The impact that number of analyzed metastatic breast cancer lesions has on response assessment by 18F-FDG PET/CT using PERCIST. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1102–4. doi:https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.166629.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shang J, Ling X, Zhang L, Tang Y, Xiao Z, Cheng Y, et al. Comparison of RECIST, EORTC criteria and PERCIST for evaluation of early response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1945–53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3420-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122s–50. doi:https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057307.
- Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):11S–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057182.
- Boellaard R. Methodological aspects of multicenter studies with quantitative PET. Methods Mol Biol. 2011;727:335–49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-062-1_18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boellaard R. Mutatis mutandis: harmonize the standard! J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1–3. doi:https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.094763.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bellevre D, Blanc Fournier C, Switsers O, Dugue AE, Levy C, Allouache D, et al. Staging the axilla in breast cancer patients with (1)(8)F-FDG PET: how small are the metastases that we can detect with new generation clinical PET systems? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1103–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2689-7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Koopman D, Groot Koerkamp M, Jager PL, Arkies H, Knollema S, Slump CH, et al. Digital PET compliance to EARL accreditation specifications. EJNMMI physics. 2017;4:9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-017-0176-5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Teoh EJ, McGowan DR, Macpherson RE, Bradley KM, Gleeson FV. Phantom and clinical evaluation of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q.Clear on an LYSO PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2015. doi:https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.159301.
- European Association of Nuclear Medicine. EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation. 2015. http://earl.eanm.org/cms/website.php?id=/en/projects/fdg_pet_ct_accreditation.htm.
- Makris NE, Huisman MC, Kinahan PE, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R. Evaluation of strategies towards harmonization of FDG PET/CT studies in multicentre trials: comparison of scanner validation phantoms and data analysis procedures. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1507–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2465-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181–200. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, Brown ML, Royal HD, Siegel BA, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:885–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Quak E, Le Roux PY, Hofman MS, Robin P, Bourhis D, Callahan J, et al. Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:2072–82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Quak E, Gervais R, Do P, Dubos-Arvis C, et al. Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:985–96. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2391-1.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lasnon C, Le Roux PY, Quak E, Robin P, Hofman MS, Bourhis D, et al. EORTC PET response criteria are more influenced by reconstruction inconsistencies than PERCIST, but both equally benefit from the EARL harmonization program. J Nucl Med. 2017. doi:https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.171983.
- Kelly MD, Declerck JM. SUVref: reducing reconstruction-dependent variation in PET SUV. EJNMMI Res. 2011;1:16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-219X-1-16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sunderland JJ, Christian PE. Quantitative PET/CT scanner performance characterization based upon the society of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging clinical trials network oncology clinical simulator phantom. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:145–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.148056.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Skougaard K, Nielsen D, Jensen BV, Hendel HW. Comparison of EORTC criteria and PERCIST for PET/CT response evaluation of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1026–31. doi:https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.111757.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kuhnert G, Boellaard R, Sterzer S, Kahraman D, Scheffler M, Wolf J, et al. Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3165-8.
- Quak E, Hovhannisyan N, Lasnon C, Fruchart C, Vilque JP, Musafiri D, et al. The importance of harmonizing interim positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: focus on the Deauville criteria. Haematologica. 2014;99:e84–5. doi:https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2014.104125.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lasnon C, Salomon T, Desmonts C, Do P, Oulkhouir Y, Madelaine J, et al. Generating harmonized SUV within the EANM EARL accreditation program: software approach versus EARL-compliant reconstruction. Ann Nucl Med. 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-016-1135-2.
- Aide N, Lasnon C, Veit Haibach P, Sera T, Sattler B, Boellaard R. EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3740-2.