Background: Despite the growing demand for amyloid PET quantification, practical challenges remain. As automated software platforms are increasingly adopted to address these limitations, we evaluated the reliability of commercial tools for Centiloid quantification against the original Centiloid Project method. Methods: This retrospective study included 332 amyloid PET scans (165 [¹⁸F]Florbetaben; 167 [¹⁸F]Flutemetamol) performed for suspected mild cognitive impairments or dementia, paired with T1-weighted MRI within one year. Centiloid values were calculated using three automated software platforms, BTXBrain, MIMneuro, and SCALE PET, and compared with the original Centiloid method. The agreement was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), a Passing–Bablok regression, and Bland–Altman plots. The concordance with the visual interpretation was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results: BTXBrain (R = 0.993; ICC = 0.986) and SCALE PET (R = 0.992; ICC = 0.991) demonstrated an excellent correlation with the reference, while MIMneuro showed a slightly lower agreement (R = 0.974; ICC = 0.966). BTXBrain exhibited a proportional underestimation (slope = 0.872 [0.860–0.885]), MIMneuro showed a significant overestimation (slope = 1.053 [1.026–1.081]), and SCALE PET demonstrated a minimal bias (slope = 1.014 [0.999–1.029]). The bias pattern was particularly noted for FMM. All platforms maintained their trends for correlations and biases when focusing on subthreshold-to-low-positive ranges (0–50 Centiloid units). However, all platforms showed an excellent agreement with the visual interpretation (areas under ROC curves > 0.996 for all). Conclusions: Three automated platforms demonstrated an acceptable reliability for Centiloid quantification, although software-specific biases were observed. These differences did not impair their feasibility in aiding the image interpretation, as supported by the concordance with visual readings. Nevertheless, users should recognize the platform-specific characteristics when applying diagnostic thresholds or interpreting longitudinal changes.

To evaluate the prognostic value of metabolic parameters derived from serial 18F fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Thirteen patients with advanced EOC who received surgical staging and adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy were prospectively enrolled. 18F-FDG PET/CT was performed before and after the surgical staging, and after third cycle of chemotherapy. Tumor glucose metabolism at baseline and its change after operation and third cycle of chemotherapy such as changes of maximum standardized uptake values (ΔSUVmax) via 18F-FDG PET/CT were measured, and assessed regarding their ability to predict recurrence. Median duration of progression-free survival (PFS) was 25 months (range, 13-34), and although optimal debulking was performed in 10 patients, 5 (38.5%) patients experienced recurrence. Univariate analyses showed significant associations between recurrence and low ΔSUVmax after surgical staging, and low SUVmax change after third cycle of chemotherapy. Multivariate analysis identified low ΔSUVmax after third cycle of chemotherapy as an independent risk factor for recurrence (P=.047, hazard ratio (HR) 16.375, 95% CI 1.041-257.536). Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that PFS significantly differed in groups categorized based on ΔSUVmax after chemotherapy (P=.001, log-rank test). 18F-FDG PET/CT allows for prediction of treatment response by the level of FDG uptake in terms of SUV at baseline and after chemotherapy. The metabolic response measured as ΔSUVmax after third cycle of chemotherapy appears to be promising predictor of recurrence in patients with advanced EOC.

Kang SY, et al. Korean J Radiol. 2023 Jun;24:e40. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2023.0066

Varying degrees of cognitive impairment have been documented during the course of cancer treatment

Kang YK, et al. Korean J Radiol. 2025 Sep;26:e77. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2025.0867