Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 31, 2026

Utilizing 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging and Quantitative Histology to Measure Dynamic Changes in the Glucose Metabolism in Mouse Models of Lung Cancer
Published on: July 21, 2018
Implications of reconstruction protocol for histo-biological characterisation of breast cancers using FDG-PET
Nicolas Aide1,2, Thibault Salomon1, Cécile Blanc-Fournier3
1Nuclear Medicine Department, University Hospital, Caen, France.
Background:
The aim of this study is to determine if the choice of the 18F-FDG-PET protocol, especially matrix size and reconstruction algorithm, is of importance to discriminate between immunohistochemical subtypes (luminal versus non-luminal) in breast cancer with textural features (TFs).
Procedures:
Forty-seven patients referred for breast cancer staging in the framework of a prospective study were reviewed as part of an ancillary study. In addition to standard PET imaging (PSFWholeBody), a high-resolution breast acquisition was performed and reconstructed with OSEM and PSF (OSEMbreast/PSFbreast). PET standard metrics and TFs were extracted. For each reconstruction protocol, a prediction model for tumour classification was built using a random forests method. Spearman coefficients were used to seek correlation between PET metrics.
Results:
PSFWholeBody showed lower numbers of voxels within VOIs than OSEMbreast and PSFbreast with median (interquartile range) equal to 130 (43-271), 316 (167-1042), 367 (107-1221), respectively (p < 0.0001). Therefore, using LifeX software, 28 (59%), 46 (98%) and 42 (89%) patients were exploitable with PSFWholeBody, OSEMbreast and PSFbreast, respectively. On matched comparisons, PSFbreast reconstruction presented better abilities than PSFwholeBody and OSEMbreast for the classification of luminal versus non-luminal breast tumours with an accuracy reaching 85.7% as compared to 67.8% for PSFwholeBody and 73.8% for OSEMbreast. PSFbreast accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were equal to 85.7%, 94.3%, 42.9%, 89.2%, 60.0%, respectively. Coarseness and ZLNU were found to be main variables of importance, appearing in all three prediction models. Coarseness was correlated with SUVmax on PSFwholeBody images (ρ = - 0.526, p = 0.005), whereas it was not on OSEMbreast (ρ = - 0.183, p = 0.244) and PSFbreast (ρ = - 0.244, p = 0.119) images. Moreover, the range of its values was higher on PSFbreast images as compared to OSEMbreast, especially in small lesions (MTV < 3 ml).
Conclusions:
High-resolution breast PET acquisitions, applying both small-voxel matrix and PSF modelling, appeared to improve the characterisation of breast tumours.
Related Concept Videos
What is Conservation Biology?
Biological Effects of Radiation
Reconstruction of Signal using Interpolation
Synthetic Biology
Golden rice
Golden rice is a genetically modified...
Biological Causes of Schizophrenia
Genetic Factors in Schizophrenia
The genetic basis of schizophrenia is strongly supported by family and twin...
Applications Of NMR In Biology

