3d打印和ACR小瓶用于PET/CT QA的比较评价：SUV和异质性分析

IF 2.8 3区物理与天体物理 Q3 CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL

Radiation Physics and Chemistry Pub Date : 2025-08-26 DOI:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2025.113264

M.H. Hanafi, N. Mohd Noor, S.H. Ramli, F.F. Ahmad Saad, F. Mohamed, M. Musarudin

{"title":"3d打印和ACR小瓶用于PET/CT QA的比较评价：SUV和异质性分析","authors":"M.H. Hanafi, N. Mohd Noor, S.H. Ramli, F.F. Ahmad Saad, F. Mohamed, M. Musarudin","doi":"10.1016/j.radphyschem.2025.113264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study evaluates the performance of 3D-printed vials as alternatives to standardized American College of Radiology (ACR) phantoms for PET/CT quality assurance using standardized uptake values (SUV<ce:inf loc=\"post\">max</ce:inf>, SUV<ce:inf loc=\"post\">mean</ce:inf>) and heterogeneity metrics. Four paired ACR vials (25, 16, 12, 8 mm) and 3D-printed vials (matched dimensions, 0.2 mm layer resolution) were imaged on a Siemens Biograph system following clinical protocols. Quantitative analysis revealed excellent agreement for 25 mm vials, with SUV<ce:inf loc=\"post\">max</ce:inf> values of 2.37 ± 0.02 (ACR) versus 2.39 ± 0.03 (3D-printed) (p > 0.05), both within clinical acceptance criteria (1.8–2.8) per ACR guidelines. The 16 mm/25 mm SUV ratio (0.89 for 3D-printed vs. 0.93 for ACR) exceeded the 0.7 diagnostic threshold, confirming preserved contrast recovery. However, increasing heterogeneity was observed in smaller 3D-printed vials (COV up to 1.39 % vs. 0.95 % for ACR at 25 mm), attributed to material inconsistencies and printing artifacts. These findings demonstrate that 3D-printed vials perform comparably to ACR standards for clinically relevant volumes (≥12 mm) while require further optimization of printing resolution and material selection.","PeriodicalId":20861,"journal":{"name":"Radiation Physics and Chemistry","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of 3D-printed and ACR vials for PET/CT QA: SUV and heterogeneity analysis\",\"authors\":\"M.H. Hanafi, N. Mohd Noor, S.H. Ramli, F.F. Ahmad Saad, F. Mohamed, M. Musarudin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.radphyschem.2025.113264\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study evaluates the performance of 3D-printed vials as alternatives to standardized American College of Radiology (ACR) phantoms for PET/CT quality assurance using standardized uptake values (SUV<ce:inf loc=\\\"post\\\">max</ce:inf>, SUV<ce:inf loc=\\\"post\\\">mean</ce:inf>) and heterogeneity metrics. Four paired ACR vials (25, 16, 12, 8 mm) and 3D-printed vials (matched dimensions, 0.2 mm layer resolution) were imaged on a Siemens Biograph system following clinical protocols. Quantitative analysis revealed excellent agreement for 25 mm vials, with SUV<ce:inf loc=\\\"post\\\">max</ce:inf> values of 2.37 ± 0.02 (ACR) versus 2.39 ± 0.03 (3D-printed) (p > 0.05), both within clinical acceptance criteria (1.8–2.8) per ACR guidelines. The 16 mm/25 mm SUV ratio (0.89 for 3D-printed vs. 0.93 for ACR) exceeded the 0.7 diagnostic threshold, confirming preserved contrast recovery. However, increasing heterogeneity was observed in smaller 3D-printed vials (COV up to 1.39 % vs. 0.95 % for ACR at 25 mm), attributed to material inconsistencies and printing artifacts. These findings demonstrate that 3D-printed vials perform comparably to ACR standards for clinically relevant volumes (≥12 mm) while require further optimization of printing resolution and material selection.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiation Physics and Chemistry\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiation Physics and Chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"92\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2025.113264\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"物理与天体物理\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation Physics and Chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2025.113264","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究使用标准化摄取值（SUVmax, SUVmean）和异质性指标评估了3d打印小瓶作为标准化美国放射学会（ACR）模型PET/CT质量保证的替代品的性能。四个配对的ACR小瓶（25、16、12、8 mm）和3d打印小瓶（尺寸匹配，0.2 mm层分辨率）按照临床方案在西门子Biograph系统上成像。定量分析显示，25mm小瓶的SUVmax值为2.37±0.02 (ACR)，而3d打印的SUVmax值为2.39±0.03 (p > 0.05)，均在ACR指南的临床可接受标准（1.8-2.8）内。16mm / 25mm的SUV比值（3d打印为0.89，ACR为0.93）超过了0.7的诊断阈值，证实了对比度恢复的保留。然而，由于材料不一致和打印伪影，在较小的3d打印小瓶中观察到越来越多的异质性（COV高达1.39%，而ACR为25 mm时为0.95%）。这些发现表明，3d打印小瓶在临床相关体积（≥12 mm）方面的表现与ACR标准相当，但需要进一步优化打印分辨率和材料选择。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Comparative evaluation of 3D-printed and ACR vials for PET/CT QA: SUV and heterogeneity analysis

This study evaluates the performance of 3D-printed vials as alternatives to standardized American College of Radiology (ACR) phantoms for PET/CT quality assurance using standardized uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean) and heterogeneity metrics. Four paired ACR vials (25, 16, 12, 8 mm) and 3D-printed vials (matched dimensions, 0.2 mm layer resolution) were imaged on a Siemens Biograph system following clinical protocols. Quantitative analysis revealed excellent agreement for 25 mm vials, with SUVmax values of 2.37 ± 0.02 (ACR) versus 2.39 ± 0.03 (3D-printed) (p > 0.05), both within clinical acceptance criteria (1.8–2.8) per ACR guidelines. The 16 mm/25 mm SUV ratio (0.89 for 3D-printed vs. 0.93 for ACR) exceeded the 0.7 diagnostic threshold, confirming preserved contrast recovery. However, increasing heterogeneity was observed in smaller 3D-printed vials (COV up to 1.39 % vs. 0.95 % for ACR at 25 mm), attributed to material inconsistencies and printing artifacts. These findings demonstrate that 3D-printed vials perform comparably to ACR standards for clinically relevant volumes (≥12 mm) while require further optimization of printing resolution and material selection.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Radiation Physics and Chemistry 化学-核科学技术

CiteScore

5.60

自引率

17.20%

发文量

574

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Radiation Physics and Chemistry is a multidisciplinary journal that provides a medium for publication of substantial and original papers, reviews, and short communications which focus on research and developments involving ionizing radiation in radiation physics, radiation chemistry and radiation processing. The journal aims to publish papers with significance to an international audience, containing substantial novelty and scientific impact. The Editors reserve the rights to reject, with or without external review, papers that do not meet these criteria. This could include papers that are very similar to previous publications, only with changed target substrates, employed materials, analyzed sites and experimental methods, report results without presenting new insights and/or hypothesis testing, or do not focus on the radiation effects.