{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,26]],"date-time":"2026-02-26T23:09:49Z","timestamp":1772147389345,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":23,"publisher":"IOP Publishing","issue":"22","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2020,11,11]],"date-time":"2020-11-11T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1605052800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org\/iop-standard\/v1"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2020,11,11]],"date-time":"2020-11-11T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1605052800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/info\/page\/text-and-data-mining"}],"funder":[{"name":"Wisconsin Oncology Network for Imaging Excellence"},{"DOI":"10.13039\/100010495","name":"Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/100010495","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"crossref"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["iopscience.iop.org"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Phys. Med. Biol."],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    Patients with metastatic melanoma often receive\n                    <jats:sup>18<\/jats:sup>\n                    F-FDG PET\/CT scans on different scanners throughout their monitoring period. In this study, we quantified the impact of scanner harmonization on longitudinal changes in PET standardized uptake values using various harmonization and normalization methods, including an anthropomorphic PET phantom. Twenty metastatic melanoma patients received at least two FDG PET\/CT scans, each on two different scanners with an average of 4 months (range: 2\u20138) between. Scans from a General Electric (GE) Discovery 710 PET CT\n                    <jats:sup>\u22121<\/jats:sup>\n                    were harmonized to the GE Discovery VCT using image reconstruction settings matching recovery coefficients in an anthropomorphic phantom with bone equivalent inserts and wall-less synthetic lesions. In patient images, SUV\n                    <jats:sub>max<\/jats:sub>\n                    was measured for each melanoma lesion and time-point. Lesions were classified as progressing, stable, or responding based on pre-defined threshold of \u00b130% change in SUV\n                    <jats:sub>max<\/jats:sub>\n                    . For comparison, harmonization was also performed using simpler methods, including harmonization using a NEMA phantom, post-reconstruction filtering, reference region normalization of SUV\n                    <jats:sub>max<\/jats:sub>\n                    , and use of SUV\n                    <jats:sub>peak<\/jats:sub>\n                    instead of SUV\n                    <jats:sub>max.<\/jats:sub>\n                    In the 20 patients, 90 lesions across two time-points were available for treatment response assessment. Treatment response classification changed in 47% (42\/90) of cases after harmonization with anthropomorphic phantom. Before harmonization, 37% (33\/90) of the lesions were classified as stable (changing less than 30% between two time-points), while the fraction of stable lesions increased to 58% (52\/90) after harmonization. Harmonization with the NEMA phantom agreed with harmonization with the anthropomorphic phantom in 91% (82\/90) of cases. Post-reconstruction filtering agreed with anthropomorphic phantom-based harmonization in 83% (75\/90) cases. The utilization of reference regions for normalization or SUV\n                    <jats:sub>peak<\/jats:sub>\n                    was unable to correct for changes as identified by the anthropomorphic phantom-based harmonization. Overall, PET scanner harmonization has a major impact on individual lesion treatment response classification in metastatic melanoma patients. Harmonization using the NEMA phantom yielded similar results to harmonization using anthropomorphic phantom, while the only acceptable post-reconstruction technique was post-reconstruction filtering. Phantom-based harmonization is therefore strongly recommended when comparing lesion uptake across time-points when the images have been acquired on different PET scanners.\n                  <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2020,9,9]],"date-time":"2020-09-09T18:32:24Z","timestamp":1599676344000},"page":"225003","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1088\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":5,"title":["Impact of scanner harmonization on PET-based treatment response assessment in metastatic melanoma"],"prefix":"10.1088","volume":"65","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-5230-7782","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Amy J","family":"Weisman","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-9549-7002","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Tyler J","family":"Bradshaw","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-5808-4102","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Mauro","family":"Namias","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Robert","family":"Jeraj","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"266","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2020,11,11]]},"reference":[{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1118\/1.4813302","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Influence of cold walls on PET image quantification and volume segmentation: a phantom study","volume":"40","author":"Berthon","year":"2013","journal-title":"Med. Phys."},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib2","first-page":"1519","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study","volume":"45","author":"Boellaard","year":"2004","journal-title":"J. Nucl. Med."},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"181","DOI":"10.1007\/s00259-009-1297-4","type":"journal-article","article-title":"FDG PET and PET\/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0","volume":"37","author":"Boellaard","year":"2010","journal-title":"Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging"},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"154","DOI":"10.18383\/j.tom.2018.00043","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Bias in PET images of solid phantoms due to ct-based attenuation correction","volume":"5","author":"Byrd","year":"2019","journal-title":"Tomography"},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1049","DOI":"10.2967\/jnumed.117.202721","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Does PET reconstruction method affect Deauville score in lymphoma patients","volume":"59","author":"Enilorac","year":"2018","journal-title":"J. Nucl. Med."},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1186\/s40658-016-0141-8","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Optimization of brain PET imaging for a multicentre trial: the French CATI experience","volume":"3","author":"Habert","year":"2016","journal-title":"EJNMMI Phys."},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"154","DOI":"10.1016\/j.neuroimage.2009.01.057","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Reducing between scanner differences in multi-center PET studies","volume":"46","author":"Joshi","year":"2009","journal-title":"Neuroimage"},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"412","DOI":"10.1007\/s00259-017-3853-7","type":"journal-article","article-title":"EANM\/EARL FDG-PET\/CT accreditation - summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems","volume":"45","author":"Kaalep","year":"2018","journal-title":"Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging"},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib9","author":"Kelly","year":"2014","type":"web-resource"},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"16","DOI":"10.1186\/2191-219X-1-16","type":"other","article-title":"SUVref: reducing reconstruction-dependent variation in PET SUV","volume":"1","author":"Kelly","year":"2011"},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib11","first-page":"2102","type":"journal-article","article-title":"The evaluation of the spatial resolution of 11C-, 18F-and 64Cu-PET images on a clinical PET\/CT scanner using Monte Carlo simulation and phantom examination","volume":"59","author":"Kimoto","year":"2018","journal-title":"J. Nucl. Med."},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"985","DOI":"10.1007\/s00259-013-2391-1","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients","volume":"40","author":"Lasnon","year":"2013","journal-title":"Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging"},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1210","DOI":"10.1007\/s11307-019-01342-5","type":"journal-article","article-title":"How often do we fail to classify the treatment response with [(18)F]FDG PET\/CT acquired on different scanners? data from clinical oncological practice using an automatic tool for SUV harmonization","volume":"21","author":"Mattoli","year":"2019","journal-title":"Mol. Imaging Biol."},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib14","author":"National Electrical Manufacturers Association","year":"2012","type":"book"},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3534","DOI":"10.1002\/mp.12311","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Validation of phantom-based harmonization for patient harmonization","volume":"44","author":"Panetta","year":"2017","journal-title":"Med. Phys."},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2072","DOI":"10.1007\/s00259-015-3128-0","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients","volume":"42","author":"Quak","year":"2015","journal-title":"Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging"},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1699","DOI":"10.2967\/jnumed.115.171983","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Does PET SUV harmonization affect PERCIST response classification?","volume":"57","author":"Quak","year":"2016","journal-title":"J. Nucl. Med."},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib18","author":"Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance R","year":"2013","type":"other"},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib19","author":"Ross","year":"2010","type":"other"},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"783","DOI":"10.1109\/23.106715","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Measuring PET scanner sensitivity: relating countrates to image signal-to-noise ratios using noise equivalents counts","volume":"37","author":"Strother","year":"1990","journal-title":"IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci."},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"145","DOI":"10.2967\/jnumed.114.148056","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Quantitative PET\/CT scanner performance characterization based upon the society of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging clinical trials network oncology clinical simulator phantom","volume":"56","author":"Sunderland","year":"2015","journal-title":"J. Nucl. Med."},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"122S-50S","DOI":"10.2967\/jnumed.108.057307","type":"journal-article","article-title":"From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors","volume":"50","author":"Wahl","year":"2009","journal-title":"J. Nucl. Med."},{"key":"pmbabb6bbbib23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3282","DOI":"10.1200\/JCO.2006.06.6068","type":"journal-article","article-title":"Positron emission tomography as an imaging biomarker","volume":"24","author":"Weber","year":"2006","journal-title":"J. Clin. Oncol."}],"container-title":["Physics in Medicine &amp; Biology"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"am","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"am","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"am","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"am","intended-application":"similarity-checking"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"},{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,13]],"date-time":"2025-12-13T14:45:50Z","timestamp":1765637150000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/iopscience.iop.org\/article\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2020,11,11]]},"references-count":23,"journal-issue":{"issue":"22","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2020,11,11]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1088\/1361-6560\/abb6bb","relation":{},"ISSN":["0031-9155","1361-6560"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0031-9155","type":"print"},{"value":"1361-6560","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2020,11,11]]},"assertion":[{"value":"Impact of scanner harmonization on PET-based treatment response assessment in metastatic melanoma","name":"article_title","label":"Article Title"},{"value":"Physics in Medicine & Biology","name":"journal_title","label":"Journal Title"},{"value":"paper","name":"article_type","label":"Article Type"},{"value":"\u00a9 2020 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.","name":"copyright_information","label":"Copyright Information"},{"value":"2020-06-08","name":"date_received","label":"Date Received","group":{"name":"publication_dates","label":"Publication dates"}},{"value":"2020-09-09","name":"date_accepted","label":"Date Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_dates","label":"Publication dates"}},{"value":"2020-11-11","name":"date_epub","label":"Online publication date","group":{"name":"publication_dates","label":"Publication dates"}}]}}