A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 195, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 310-320

  Adams, Michael C ^a   Turkington, Timothy G ^a   Wilson, Joshua M ^a   Wong, Terence Z ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Blood glucose; Body weight; Partial volume effect; PET; Quantification; Reconstruction parameters; Scanner; Standardized uptake value (SUV); Uptake time

Indexed keywords

GLUCOSE; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

BODY SIZE; BODY WEIGHT; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; REVIEW; TREATMENT RESPONSE; ALGORITHM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC USE; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; METABOLISM; NEOPLASM; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCINTISCANNING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ALGORITHMS; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 77955603274     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.4923     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in the evaluation of cancer treatment response. J Nucl Med 2009; 50:88-99
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 Res 2005; 11:2785-2808 (Pubitemid 40525178)
3. Weber WA, Wieder H. Monitoring chemotherapy and radiotherapy of solid tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006; 33:27-37
4. 18F-FDG uptake in lung, breast, and colon cancers: molecular biology correlates and disease characterization. J Nucl Med 2009; 50:1820-1827
5. Eary JF, O'Sullivan F, Powitan Y, et al. Sarcoma tumor FDG uptake measured by PET and patient outcome: a retrospective analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29:1149-1154 (Pubitemid 34985359)
6. Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. RadioGraphics 1999; 19:61-77
7. Hellwig D, Graeter TP, Ukena D, et al. 18F-FDG PET for mediastinal staging of lung cancer: which SUV threshold makes sense? J Nucl Med 2007; 48:1761-1766 (Pubitemid 350099319)
8. Lucignani G. SUV and segmentation: pressing challenges in tumour assessment and treatment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009; 36:715-720
9. 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with sarcomas: interobserver variability of quantitative parameters in treatment-induced changes in histopathologically responding and nonresponding tumors. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 1038-1046
10. 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 (Pubitemid 47618506)
11. Holdsworth CH, Badawi RD, Manola JB, et al. CT and PET: early prognostic indicators of response to imatinib mesylate in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. AJR 2007; 189:1450; [web]W324-W330
12. 18F-FDG PET scans. J Nucl Med 2007; 48:1449-1458
13. Weber WA. PET for response assessment in oncology: radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Br J Radiol Suppl 2005; 28:42-49 (Pubitemid 43154235)
14. Lordick F, Ott K, Krause B, et al. PET to assess early metabolic response and to guide treatment of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: the MUNICON phase II trial. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8:797-805 (Pubitemid 47308659)
15. Strobel K, Skalsky J, Steinert HC, et al. S-100B and FDG-PET/CT in therapy response assessment of melanoma patients. Dermatology 2007; 215:192-201 (Pubitemid 47378984)
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. Keyes JW. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med 1995; 36:1836-1839
18. Saquib N, Flatt SW, Natarajan L, et al. Weight gain and recovery of pre-cancer weight after breast cancer treatments: evidence from the Women's Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007; 105:177-186 (Pubitemid 47366880)
19. Harvie MN, Campbell IT, Thatcher N, Baildam A. Changes in body composition in men and women with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing chemotherapy. J Hum Nutr Diet 2003; 16:323-326 (Pubitemid 37304380)
20. Kim CK, Gupta NC, Chandramouli B, Alavi A. Standardized uptake values of FDG: body surface area correction is preferable to body weight correction. J Nucl Med 1994; 35:164-167 (Pubitemid 24018461)
21. Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, Wahl RL. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction1. Radiology 1999; 213: 521-525 (Pubitemid 29510601)
22. Erselcan T, Turgut B, Dogan D, Ozdemir S. Lean body mass-based standardized uptake value, derived from a predictive equation, might be misleading in PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29:1630-1638 (Pubitemid 35435733)
23. Graham MM, Peterson LM, Hayward RM. Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake. Nucl Med Biol 2000; 27:647-655
24. Izquierdo-Garcia D, Davies JR, Graves MJ, et al. Comparison of methods for magnetic resonance-guided [18-F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in human carotid arteries: reproducibility, partial volume correction, and correlation between methods. Stroke 2009; 40:86-93
25. Krak NC, van der Hoeven JJM, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JWR, 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
26. 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 (Pubitemid 27332609)
27. 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 1]:122S-150S
28. 18F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues. J Nucl Med 2004; 45:784-788
29. 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
30. Castell F, Cook GJR. Quantitative techniques in 18FDG PET scanning in oncology. Br J Cancer 2008; 98:1597-1601 (Pubitemid 351684676)
31. Acton P, Zhuang H, Alavi A. Quantification in PET. Radiol Clin N Am 2004; 42:1055-1062
32. Lindholm P, Minn H, Leskinen-Kallio S, Bergman J, Ruotsalainen 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)
33. 18F-FDG PET in classifying lymphomas. J Nucl Med 2005; 46:1659-1663
34. Vriens D, de Geus-Oei L, van Laarhoven HW, et al. Evaluation of different normalization procedures for the calculation of the standardized uptake value in therapy response monitoring studies. Nucl Med Commun 2009; 30:550-557
35. Sanghera B, Emmott J, Wellsted D, Chambers J, Wong W. Influence of N-butylscopolamine on SUV in FDG PET of the bowel. Ann Nucl Med 2009; 23:471-478
36. Hadi M, Bacharach SL, Whatley M, et al. Glucose and insulin variations in patients during the time course of a FDG-PET study and implications for the "glucose-corrected" SUV. Nucl Med Biol 2008; 35:441-445
37. 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med 2008; 49:1804-1808
38. 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med 2006; 47:1059-1066
39. Boellaard R, Oyen WJG, Hoekstra CJ, et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35:2320-2333
40. 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
41. Erdi YE, Nehmeh SA, Pan T, et al. The CT motion quantitation of lung lesions and its impact on PET-measured SUVs. J Nucl Med 2004; 45:1287-1292 (Pubitemid 47618524)
42. Bunyaviroch T, Turkington T, Wong T, Wilson J, Colsher J, Coleman R. Quantitative effects of contrast enhanced CT attenuation correction on PET SUV measurements. Mol Imaging Biol 2008; 10: 107-113
43. Scheuermann JS, Saffer JR, Karp JS, Levering AM, Siegel BA. Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: The American College of Radiology Imaging Network experience. J Nucl Med 2009; 50:1187-1193
44. 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
45. Tong S, Alessio AM, Kinahan PE. Noise and signal properties in PSF-based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: an experimental evaluation. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55:1453-1473
46. 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med 2009; 50:1646-1654
47. Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, 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 (Pubitemid 46295349)
48. Kadrmas DJ, Casey ME, Conti M, Jakoby BW, Lois C, Townsend DW. Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection. J Nucl Med 2009; 50: 1315-1323
49. 18F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values. J Nucl Med 2005; 46:424-428
50. Geworski L, Knoop BO, de Wit M, Ivancevic V, Bares R, Munz DL. Multicenter comparison of calibration and cross calibration of PET scanners. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:635-639 (Pubitemid 34507115)
51. 18F-FDG PET and CT measurements of tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med 2009; 50:1760-1769
52. Chin BB, Green ED, Turkington TG, Hawk TC, Coleman RE. Increasing uptake time in FDG-PET: standardized uptake values in normal tissues at 1 versus 3 h. Mol Imaging Biol 2009; 11:118-122