Umeå University's logo

Introduction ¹¹C-acetate (ACE)-PET/CT is used for staging of high-risk prostate cancer. PET data is reconstructed with iterative algorithms, such as VUEPointHD ViP (VPHD) and VUEPoint HD Sharp IR (SharpIR), the latter with additional resolution recovery. It is expected that the resolution recovery algorithm should render more accurate maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUV_max and SUV_mean) and functional tumor volumes (FTV) than the ordinary OSEM. Performing quantitative analysis, choice of volume-of-interest delineation algorithm (SUV threshold) may influence FTV. Optimizing PET acquisition time is justified if image quality and quantitation do not deteriorate. The aim of this study is to identify the optimal reconstruction algorithm, SUV threshold and acquisition time for ACE-PET/CT. Methods ACE-PET/CT data acquired with a General Electric Discovery 690 PET/CT from 16 consecutive high-risk prostate cancer patients was reconstructed with VPHD and SharpIR. Forty pelvic lymph nodes (LNs) and 14 prostate glands were delineated with 42% and estimated threshold. SUV_max, SUV_mean, FTV and total lesion uptake were measured. Default acquisition time was four minutes per bed position. In a subset of lesions, acquisition times of one, two and four minutes were evaluated. Structural tumor volumes (STV) of the LNs were measured with CT for correlation with functional volumetric parameters. To validate SUV quantification under different conditions with SharpIR 42%, recovery coefficients (RCs) of SUV_mean and FTV were calculated from a phantom with ¹⁸F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG)-filled volumes 0.1–9.2cm³ and signal-to-background (S/B) ratios 4.3–15.9. Results With SharpIR, SUV_max and SUV_mean were higher and FTV lower compared with VPHD, regardless of threshold method, in both prostates and LNs. Total lesion uptake determined with both threshold methods was lower with SharpIR compared with VPHD with both threshold methods, except in subgroup analysis of prostate targets where estimated threshold returned higher values. Longer acquisition times returned higher FTV for both threshold methods, regardless of reconstruction algorithm. The FTV difference was most pronounced with one minute’s acquisition per bed position, which also produced visually the highest noise. SUV parameters were unaffected by varying acquisition times. FTV with SharpIR 42% showed the best correspondence with STV. SharpIR 42% gave higher RCs of SUV_mean and FTV with increasing phantom size and S/B-ratio, as expected. Conclusions Delineation with SharpIR 42% seems to provide the most accurate combined information from SUV_max, SUV_mean, FTV and total lesion uptake. Acquisition time may be shortened to two minutes per bed position with preserved image quality.