Interobserver variability among measurements of the maximum and mean standardized uptake values on 18F-FDG PET/CT and measurements of tumor size on diagnostic CT in patients with pulmonary tumors

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 51, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 782-788

  Huang, Yu Erh ^a   Chen, Chih Feng ^b   Huang, Yu Jie ^a   Konda, Sheela D ^b   Appelbaum, Daniel E ^b   Pu, Yonglin ^b  

^a CHANG GUNG UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (Taiwan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

18F fluorodeoxyglucose; Computed tomography; Lung nodules; Standardized uptake value

Indexed keywords

CHEST CT; COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; CT SCAN; F-FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE; FDG PET; INTEROBSERVER RELIABILITY; INTEROBSERVER VARIABILITY; INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS; LUNG NODULE; MALIGNANT LESION; PULMONARY NODULES; PULMONARY TUMORS; RADIATION THERAPY; REGION OF INTEREST; ROOT-MEAN-SQUARE VALUES; SERIAL STUDIES; STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUES; THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS; THREE PARAMETERS; TUMOR SIZE;

BIOLOGICAL ORGANS; CHEMOTHERAPY; IMAGE SEGMENTATION; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIATION EFFECTS; TUMORS;

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY;

DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LUNG TUMOR; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCINTISCANNING; STATISTICS;

ADULT; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 77955687858     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/02841851.2010.497772     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Owens DK. Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a metaanalysis. JAMA 2001;285:914-924
2. Steinert HC, Hauser M, Allemann F, Engel H, Berthold T, von Schulthess GK, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: nodal staging with FDG PET versus CT with correlative lymph node mapping and sampling. Radiology 1997;202:441-446
3. Hicks RJ, Kalff V, MacManus MP, Ware RE, Hogg A, McKenzie AF, et al. (18) F-FDG PET provides high-impact and powerful prognostic stratification in staging newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2001;42:1596-1604
4. Hicks RJ, Kalff V, MacManus MP, Ware RE, McKenzie AF, Matthews JP, et al. The utility of (18) F-FDG PET for suspected recurrent non-small cell lung cancer after potentially curative therapy: impact on management and prognostic stratification. J Nucl Med 2001;42:1605-1613
5. Strauss LG, Conti PS. The applications of PET in clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 1991;32:623-648
6. Lowe VJ, Hoffman JM, DeLong DM, Patz EF, Coleman RE. Semiquantitative and visual analysis of FDG-PET images in pulmonary abnormalities. J Nucl Med 1994;35:1771-1776
7. Patlak CS, Blasberg RG, Fenstermacher JD. Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multipletime uptake data. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1983;3:1-7.
8. 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
9. Gupta NC, Frank AR, Dewan NA, Redepenning LS, Rothberg ML, Mailliard JA, et al. Solitary pulmonary nodules: detection of malignancy with PET with 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Radiology 1992;184:441-444
10. Kim SK, Allen-Auerbach M, Goldin J, Fueger BJ, Dahlbom M, Brown M, et al. Accuracy of PET/CT in characterization of solitary pulmonary lesions. J Nucl Med 2007;48:214-220
11. Patz EF Jr, Lowe VJ, Hoffman JM, Paine SS, Burrowes P, Coleman RE, et al. Focal pulmonary abnormalities: evaluation with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET scanning. Radiology 1993;188:487-490
12. Ferran N, Ricart Y, Lopez M, Martinez-Ballarin I, Roca M, G á mez C, et al. Characterization of radiologically indeterminate lung lesions: 99mTc-depreotide SPECT versus 18FFDG PET. Nucl Med Commun 2006;27:507-514
13. H ü bner KF, Buonocore E, Gould HR, Thie J, Smith GT, Stephens S, et al. Differentiating benign from malignant lung lesions using "quantitative" parameters of FDG PET images. Clin Nucl Med 1996;21:941-949
14. Ryu JS, Choi NC, Fischman AJ, Lynch TJ, Mathisen DJ. FDG-PET in staging and restaging non-small cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: correlation with histopathology. Lung Cancer 2002;35:179-187
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
16. 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
17. Weber WA, Schwaiger M, Avril N. Quantitative assessment of tumor metabolism using FDG-PET imaging. Nucl Med Biol 2000;27:683-687
18. Keyes JW. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med 1995;36:1836-1839
19. Sch ö der H, Erdi YE, Chao K, Gonen M, Larson SM, Yeung HW. Clinical implications of different image reconstruction parameters for interpretation of whole-body PET studies in cancer patients. J Nucl Med 2004;45:559-566
20. Marom EM, Munden RF, Truong MT, Gladish GW, Podoloff DA, Mawlawi O, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability of standardized uptake value measurements in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Imaging 2006;21: 205-212
21. Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, Sabloff BS, Truong MT, Herbst RS, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2574-2582
22. Paquet N, Albert A, Foidart J, Hustinx R. Within-patient variability of 18F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues J Nucl Med 2004;45:784-788
23. 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. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205-216 (Pubitemid 30099779)
24. Gl ü er CC, Blake G, Lu Y, Blunt BA, Jergas M, Genant HK. Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporos Int 1995;5:262-270
25. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420-428
26. Glantz SA. How to test for trends. In: Glantz SA, editor. Primer of biostatistics. Fifth edition. Chicago: McGraw-Hill; 2002. p. 264 -267
27. Lee JR, Madsen MT, Bushnel D, Menda Y. A threshold method to improve standardized uptake value reproducibility. Nucl Med Commun 2000;21:685-690
28. Hashimoto Y, Tsujikawa T, Kondo C, Maki M, Momose M, Nagai A, et al. Accuracy of PET for diagnosis of solid pulmonary lesions with 18F-FDG uptake below the standardized uptake value of 2.5. J Nucl Med 2006;47:426-431
29. 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. Eur J Cancer 1999;35: 1773-1782
30. 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
31. Bogot NR, Kazerooni EA, Kelly AM, Quint LE, Desjardins B, Nan B. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the assessment of pulmonary nodule size on CT using film and computer display methods. Acad Radiol 2005;12:948-956
32. 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