Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 50, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 1646-1654

  Velasquez, Linda M ^a   Boellaard, Ronald ^b   Kollia, Georgia ^a   Hayes, Wendy ^a   Hoekstra, Otto S ^b   Lammertsma, Adriaan A ^b   Galbraith, Susan M ^a  

^a BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

18F FDG PET; Multicenter clinical trial; Repeatability; SUV

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT;

ADULT; ADVANCED CANCER; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM CANCER; DRUG UPTAKE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY; GASTROINTESTINAL TUMOR; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; SCINTISCANNING;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; GASTROINTESTINAL NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 70349650689     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.063347     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:496-507. (Pubitemid 43200300)
2. Kelloff GJ, Hoffman JM, Johnson B, et al. Progress and promise of FDG-PET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development. Clin Cancer. 2005;11:2785-2808. (Pubitemid 40525178)
3. Nakamoto Y, Chang AE, Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Comparison of attenuation-corrected and non-corrected FDG-PET images for axillary nodal staging in newly diagnosed breast cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2002;4:161-169. (Pubitemid 34272700)
4. Halligan S. Reproducibility, repeatability, correlation and measurement error. Br J Radiol. 2002;75:193-195.
5. Kamibayashi T, Tsuchida T, Demura Y, et al. Reproducibility of semi-quantitative parameters in FDG-PET using two different PET scanners: influence of attenuation correction method and examination interval. Mol Imaging Biol. 2008;10:162-166.
6. 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. (Pubitemid 29523568)
7. 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. (Pubitemid 40562120)
8. Minn H, Zasadny KR, Quint LE, Wahl RL. Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake at PET. Radiology. 1995;196:167-173.
9. 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1804-1808.
10. 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1304-1309.
11. 18F-FDG-PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1059-1066.
12. Weber WA. Use of PET in monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:983-995.
13. 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.
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. Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, Wahl RL. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. Radiology. 1999;213:521-525. (Pubitemid 29510601)
16. Zasadny KR,Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology. 1993;189:847-850.
17. Hume R. Prediction of lean body mass from height and weight. J Clin Pathol. 1966;19:389-391.
18. Thie JA, Hubner KF, Smith GT. The diagnostic utility of the lognormal behavior of PET standardized uptake values in tumors. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1664-1672.
19. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310. (Pubitemid 16134762)
20. Lindholm P, Minn H, Leskinen-Kallio S, Bergman J, Routsalainen U, Joensuu H. Influence of the blood glucose concentration on FDG uptake in cancer: a PET study. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:1-6. (Pubitemid 23014212)
21. Lowe VJ, DeLong DM, Hoffman JM, Coleman RE. Optimum scanning protocol for FDG-PET evaluation of pulmonary malignancy. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:883-887.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl):122S-150S.
25. 18F]FDG uptake in breast cancer during chemotherapy: comparison of analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:674-681.