Impact of PET reconstruction protocols on quantification of lesions that fulfil the PERCIST lesion inclusion criteria

Background The aim of this study was to compare liver and oncologic lesion standardized uptake values (SUV) obtained through two different reconstruction protocols, GE’s newest clinical lesion detection protocol (Q.Clear) and the EANM Research Ltd (EARL) harmonization protocol, and to assess the clinical relevance of potential differences and possible implications for daily clinical practice using the PERCIST lesional inclusion criteria. NEMA phantom recovery coefficients (RC) and SUV normalized for lean body mass (LBM), referred to as SUV normalized for LBM (SUL), of liver and lesion volumes of interest were compared between the two reconstruction protocols. Head-to-toe PET/CT examinations and raw data from 64 patients were retrospectively retrieved. PET image reconstruction was carried out twice: once optimized for quantification, complying with EARL accreditation requirements, and once optimized for lesion detection, according to GE’s Q.Clear reconstruction settings. Results The two reconstruction protocols showed different NEMA phantom RC values for different sphere sizes. Q.Clear values were always highest and exceeded the EARL accreditation maximum for smaller spheres. Comparison of liver SUL mean showed a statistically significant but clinically irrelevant difference between both protocols. Comparison of lesion SUL peak and SUL max showed a statistically significant, and clinically relevant, difference of 1.64 and 4.57, respectively. Conclusions For treatment response assessment using PERCIST criteria, the harmonization reconstruction protocol should be used as the lesion detection reconstruction protocol using resolution recovery systematically overestimates true SUL values.