Treatment monitoring by18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with sarcomas: Interobserver variability of quantitative parameters in treatment-induced changes in histopathologically responding and nonresponding tumors

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 49, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 1038-1046

  Benz, Matthias R ^a   Evilevitch, Vladimir ^a   Allen Auerbach, Martin S ^a   Eilber, Fritz C ^a   Phelps, Michael E ^a   Czernin, Johannes ^a   Weber, Wolfgang A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Interobserver variability; PET CT; Quantitative analysis; Sarcoma; Treatment monitoring

Indexed keywords

BARIUM SULFATE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; IOHEXOL; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; GLUCOSE; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; OSTEOSARCOMA; PATIENT MONITORING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA; TREATMENT RESPONSE; ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; ADJUVANT THERAPY; BONE TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; METABOLISM; MIDDLE AGED; SCINTISCANNING; SOFT TISSUE TUMOR;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BONE NEOPLASMS; CHEMOTHERAPY, ADJUVANT; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; GLUCOSE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOADJUVANT THERAPY; OBSERVER VARIATION; OSTEOSARCOMA; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; SOFT TISSUE NEOPLASMS;

EID: 46749118451     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.107.050187     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:496-507.
2. Weber WA, Figlin R. Monitoring cancer treatment with PET/CT: does it make a difference? J Nucl Med. 2007;48(suppl):36S-44S.
3. 18F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment versus visual analysis. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1626-1632.
4. Weber WA, Wieder H. Monitoring chemotherapy and radiotherapy of solid tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33(suppl 1):27-37.
5. 18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5366-5372.
6. 18F]fluorodeoxyglucose for monitoring primary chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1689-1695.
7. Schuetze SM, Rubin BP, Vernon C, et al. Use of positron emission tomography in localized extremity soft tissue sarcoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer. 2005;103:339-348.
8. Ott K, Fink U, Becker K, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in gastric carcinoma by metabolic imaging: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:4604-4610.
9. Avril N, Sassen S, Schmalfeldt B, et al. Prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by sequential F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7445-7453.
10. Weber WA, Ott K, Becker K, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction by metabolic imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3058-3065.
11. 18F-FDG PET for assessment of therapy response and preoperative re-evaluation after neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:463-471.
12. 18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8362-8370.
13. 18F-FDG PET is an early predictor of pathologic tumor response to preoperative radiochemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1241-1248.
14. Weber WA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R, Hanauske AR, Schwaiger M. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1771-1777.
15. Scarfone C, Lavely WC, Cmelak AJ, et al. Prospective feasibility trial of radiotherapy target definition for head and neck cancer using 3-dimensional PET and CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:543-552.
16. 18FDG-PET on target and critical organs in CT-based treatment planning of patients with poorly defined non-small-cell lung carcinoma: a prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;52:339-350.
17. Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2651-2657.
18. Marom EM, Munden RF, Truong MT, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability of standardized uptake value measurements in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Imaging. 2006;21:205-212.
19. Stahl A, Ott K, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET imaging of locally advanced gastric carcinomas: correlation with endoscopic and histopathological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:288-295.
20. Avril N, Bense S, Ziegler SI, et al. Breast imaging with fluorine-18-FDG PET: quantitative image analysis. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:1186-1191.
21. 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1059-1066.
22. Allen-Auerbach M, Yeom K, Park J, Phelps M, Czernin J. Standard PET/CT of the chest during shallow breathing is inadequate for comprehensive staging of lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:298-301.
23. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Quon A, et al. Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:797-801.
24. Goerres GW, Burger C, Kamel E, et al. Respiration-induced attenuation artifact at PET/CT: technical considerations. Radiology. 2003;226:906-910.
25. Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T, Sashin D. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys. 1998;25:2046-2053.
26. Roche A, Malandain G, Ayache N. Unifying maximum likelihood approaches in medical image registration. Int J Imaging Syst Technol. 2000;11:71-80.
27. Rueckert D, Hayes C, Stodholme C, Summers P, Leach M, Hawkes D. Non-rigid registration of breast MR images using mutual information. Lecture Notes Comput Sci. 1998;1496:1144-1152.
28. Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45:255-268.
29. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.
30. Zar JH. Biostatistical Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1999.
31. 18F-FDG PET/ CT in head and neck tumours. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:1046-1050.
32. 18F-FDG uptake below the standardized uptake value of 2.5. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:426-431.
33. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1519-1527.
34. Graham MM, Peterson LM, Hayward RM. Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake. Nucl Med Biol. 2000;27:647-655.
35. Hunter GJ, Hamberg LM, Alpert NM, Choi NC, Fischman AJ. Simplified measurement of deoxyglucose utilization rate. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:950-955.
36. Lee JR, Madsen MT, Bushnel D, Menda Y. A threshold method to improve standardized uptake value reproducibility. Nucl Med Commun. 2000;21:685-690.
37. van Dalen JA, Hoffmann AL, Dicken V, et al. A novel iterative method for lesion delineation and volumetric quantification with FDG PET. Nucl Med Commun. 2007;28:485-493.
38. Daisne JF, Sibomana M, Bol A, Doumont T, Lonneux M, Gregoire V. Tridimensional automatic segmentation of PET volumes based on measured source-to-background ratios: influence of reconstruction algorithms. Radiother Oncol. 2003;69:247-250.