Evaluation of different normalization procedures for the calculation of the standardized uptake value in therapy response monitoring studies

Nuclear Medicine Communications

Volumn 30, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 550-557

  Vriens, Dennis ^a   De Geus Oei, Lioe Fee ^a   Van Laarhoven, Hanneke W ^a   Timmer Bonte, Johanna N H ^a   Krabbe, Paul F M ^a   Visser, Eric P ^a   Oyen, Wim J G ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

18F 2 fluoro 2 deoxy D glucose; Chemotherapy; Colorectal carcinoma; Nonsmall cell lung carcinoma; Positron emission tomography; Standardized uptake value; Survival; Therapy monitoring

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; GLUCOSE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY SURFACE; BODY WEIGHT; CALCULATION; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLORECTAL CARCINOMA; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; HAZARD RATIO; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LEAN BODY WEIGHT; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; MONITORING; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; OVERALL SURVIVAL; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTION; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL RATE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 67650286980     PISSN: 01433636     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e32832bdc80     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Herbertson RA, Lee ST, Tebbutt N, Scott AM. The expanding role of PET technology in the management of patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2007; 18:1774-1781.
2. 18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in management of recurrent colorectal cancer. Arch Surg 1999; 134:503-511. Discussion 511-513.
3. Watson AJ, Lolohea S, Robertson GM, Frizelle FA. The role of positron emission tomography in the management of recurrent colorectal cancer: a review. Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50:102-114.
4. Mac Manus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, McKenzie A, Rischin D, Salminen EK, et al. Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography scanning for response-assessment after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with nonsmall-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:1285-1292.
5. Vansteenkiste J, Fischer BM, Dooms C, Mortensen J. Positron-emission tomography in prognostic and therapeutic assessment of lung cancer: systematic review. Lancet Oncol 2004; 5:531-540.
6. De Geus-Oei LF, Wiering B, Krabbe PF, Ruers TJ, Punt CJ, Oyen WJ. FDG-PET for prediction of survival of patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2006; 17:1650-1655.
7. De Geus-Oei LF, van der Heijden HF, Corstens FH, Oyen WJ. Predictive and prognostic value of FDG-PET in nonsmall-cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Cancer 2007; 110:1654-1664.
8. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Hoffmann M, Bergner R, Uppenkamp M, Eisenhut M, Pan L, et al. Prediction of short-term survival in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer following chemotherapy based on 2-deoxy-2-[F-18] fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography: a feasibility study. Mol Imaging Biol 2007; 9:308-317.
9. 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.
10. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Rudi J. PET-FDG as predictor of therapy response in patients with colorectal carcinoma. Q J Nucl Med 2003; 47:8-13.
11. De Geus-Oei LF, van Laarhoven HW, Visser EP, Hermsen R, van Hoorn BA, Kamm YJ, et al. Chemotherapy response evaluation with FDG-PET in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2008; 19:348-352.
12. 18F-FDG PET in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2007; 48:1592-1598.
13. 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:1304-1309.
14. 18F]-2-fluoro-2- deoxy-D-glucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med 2000; 27:731-743.
15. 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med 2006; 47:1059-1066.
16. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:205-216.
17. Krak NC, Boellaard R, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JW, Hoekstra CJ, Lammertsma AA. Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005; 32:294-301.
18. 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med 2008; 49:1804-1808.
19. Ahuja V, Coleman RE, Herndon J, Patz EF Jr. The prognostic significance of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Cancer 1998; 83:918-924.
20. Downey RJ, Akhurst T, Gonen M, Vincent A, Bains MS, Larson S, et al. Preoperative F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography maximal standardized uptake value predicts survival after lung cancer resection. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:3255-3260.
21. Dhital K, Saunders CA, Seed PT, O'Doherty MJ, Dussek J. [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and its prognostic value in lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000; 18:425-428.
22. Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, Dupont PJ, De Leyn PR, Verbeken EK, Deneffe GJ, et al. Prognostic importance of the standardized uptake value on (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography scan in non-small-cell lung cancer: an analysis of 125 cases. Leuven Lung Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:3201-3206.
23. 18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by using positron emission tomography in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2002; 23:865-870.
24. 18F-FDG uptake as a biologic prognostic factor for recurrence in patients with surgically resected non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:39-45.
25. 18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography predicts outcome of non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:1136-1143.
26. Findlay M, Young H, Cunningham D, Iveson A, Cronin B, Hickish T, et al. Noninvasive monitoring of tumor metabolism using fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography in colorectal cancer liver metastases: correlation with tumor response to fluorouracil. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14:700-708.
27. 18F-FDG PET kinetics in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma receiving FOLFOX chemotherapy. J Nucl Med 2004; 45:1480-1487.
28. Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, De Leyn PR, Dupont PJ, Verbeken EK. Potential use of FDG-PET scan after induction chemotherapy in surgically staged IIIa-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective pilot study. The Leuven Lung Cancer Group. Ann Oncol 1998; 9:1193-1198.
29. 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer for prediction of pathologic response and times to relapse after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12:97-106.
30. Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B, Tyndale-Hines L, Link T, Peschel C, 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.
31. 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.
32. Keyes JW Jr. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med 1995; 36:1836-1839.
33. Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, Hoekstra O, Paans A, Visser E, et al. Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007; 34:392-404.
34. Graham MM, Peterson LM, Hayward RM. Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake. Nucl Med Biol 2000; 27:647-655.
35. Krak NC, van der Hoeven JJ, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JW, van der Wall E, Lammertsma AA. Measuring [(18)F]FDG uptake in breast cancer during chemotherapy: comparison of analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:674-681.
36. Menda Y, Bushnell DL, Madsen MT, McLaughlin K, Kahn D, Kernstine KH. Evaluation of various corrections to the standardized uptake value for diagnosis of pulmonary malignancy. Nucl Med Commun 2001; 22:1077-1081.
37. Stahl A, Ott K, Schwaiger M, Weber WA. Comparison of different SUV-based methods for monitoring cytotoxic therapy with FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31:1471-1478.
38. Yeung HW, Sanches A, Squire OD, Macapinlac HA, Larson SM, Erdi YE. Standardized uptake value in pediatric patients: an investigation to determine the optimum measurement parameter. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29:61-66.
39. Hamberg LM, Hunter GJ, Alpert NM, Choi NC, Babich JW, Fischman AJ. The dose uptake ratio as an index of glucose metabolism: useful parameter or oversimplification? J Nucl Med 1994; 35:1308-1312.
40. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer 1999; 35:1773-1782.