Measuring response to therapy using FDG PET: Semi-quantitative and full kinetic analysis

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 832-842

  Cheebsumon, Patsuree ^a   Velasquez, Linda M ^b   Hoekstra, Corneline J ^c   Hayes, Wendy ^b   Kloet, Reina W ^a   Hoetjes, Nikie J ^a   Smit, Egbert F ^d   Hoekstra, Otto S ^a   Lammertsma, Adriaan A ^a   Boellaard, Ronald ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

^c JEROEN BOSCH HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^d ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

FDG PET; NLR; Patlak; Response monitoring; SUV

Indexed keywords

BRIVANIB ALANINATE; CETUXIMAB; ERLOTINIB; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; GLUCOSE;

ARTICLE; BLOOD VOLUME; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM CANCER; FEMALE; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; KINETICS; LUNG CANCER; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MALE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

AREA UNDER CURVE; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; KINETICS; MALE; NEOPLASMS; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79953683393     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-010-1705-9     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. NE Avril WA Weber 2005 Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET Radiol Clin North Am 43 189 204 15693656 10.1016/j.rcl.2004.09.006 (Pubitemid 40326568)
2. E Bastiaannet H Groen PL Jager DC Cobben WT van der Graaf W Vaalburg, et al. 2004 The value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading and response to therapy of soft tissue and bone sarcomas; a systematic review and meta-analysis Cancer Treat Rev 30 83 101 14766127 10.1016/j.ctrv.2003.07.004 1:STN:280: DC%2BD2c%2FmsFWquw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 38240089)
3. YE Erdi 2007 The use of PET for radiotherapy Curr Med Imaging Rev 3 3 16 10.2174/157340507779940291
4. JW Fletcher B Djulbegovic HP Soares BA Siegel VJ Lowe GH Lyman, et al. 2008 Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology J Nucl Med 49 480 508 18287273 10.2967/jnumed.107.047787 (Pubitemid 351355215)
5. LF de Geus-Oei HF van der Heijden FH Corstens WJ Oyen 2007 Predictive and prognostic value of FDG-PET in nonsmall-cell lung cancer: a systematic review Cancer 110 1654 1664 17879371 10.1002/cncr.22979 (Pubitemid 47557290)
6. CJ Hoekstra SG Stroobants EF Smit J Vansteenkiste H van Tinteren PE Postmus, et al. 2005 Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer J Clin Oncol 23 8362 8370 16293866 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.1189
7. ME Juweid S Stroobants OS Hoekstra FM Mottaghy M Dietlein A Guermazi, et al. 2007 Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma J Clin Oncol 25 571 578 17242397 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.2305 (Pubitemid 350002965)
8. JF Vansteenkiste SG Stroobants 2001 The role of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in respiratory oncology Eur Respir J 17 802 820 11401078 10.1183/09031936.01.17408020 1:STN:280: DC%2BD38%2Fht1aktw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 32492571)
9. WA Weber 2005 Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome J Nucl Med 46 983 995 15937310 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XitFSqtrg%3D (Pubitemid 43733514)
10. GR Borst JS Belderbos R Boellaard EF Comans K De Jaeger AA Lammertsma, et al. 2005 Standardised FDG uptake: a prognostic factor for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer Eur J Cancer 41 1533 1541 15953716 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.03.026 (Pubitemid 40981834)
11. CJ Hoekstra OS Hoekstra SG Stroobants J Vansteenkiste J Nuyts EF Smit, et al. 2002 Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET J Nucl Med 43 1304 1309 12368367 1:CAS:528: DC%2BD38XotlKjs70%3D
12. BD Cheson B Pfistner ME Juweid RD Gascoyne L Specht SJ Horning, et al. 2007 Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma J Clin Oncol 25 579 586 17242396 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.2403 (Pubitemid 350002966)
13. ME Juweid BD Cheson 2006 Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy N Engl J Med 354 496 507 16452561 10.1056/NEJMra050276 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28Xptlajsw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 43200300)
14. R Boellaard 2009 Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis J Nucl Med 50 Suppl 1 11S 20S 19380405 10.2967/jnumed.108.057182 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXmtFahsb8%3D
15. LK Shankar JM Hoffman S Bacharach MM Graham J Karp AA Lammertsma, et al. 2006 Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials J Nucl Med 47 1059 1066 16741317 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XmtlWmt7s%3D (Pubitemid 46939960)
16. H Young R Baum U Cremerius K Herholz O Hoekstra AA Lammertsma, et al. 1999 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 35 1773 1782 10673991 10.1016/S0959- 8049(99)00229-4 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c7jvV2ntA%3D%3D (Pubitemid 29512308)
17. CJ Hoekstra I Paglianiti OS Hoekstra EF Smit PE Postmus GJ Teule, et al. 2000 Monitoring response to therapy in cancer using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D- glucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytical methods Eur J Nucl Med 27 731 743 10901462 10.1007/s002590050570 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXjsVOgtrs%3D (Pubitemid 30408777)
18. GJ Hunter LM Hamberg NM Alpert NC Choi AJ Fischman 1996 Simplified measurement of deoxyglucose utilization rate J Nucl Med 37 950 955 8683318 1:CAS:528:DyaK28Xkt1KlsL8%3D (Pubitemid 126447127)
19. N Sadato T Tsuchida S Nakaumra A Waki H Uematsu N Takahashi, et al. 1998 Non-invasive estimation of the net influx constant using the standardized uptake value for quantification of FDG uptake of tumours Eur J Nucl Med 25 559 564 9618569 10.1007/s002590050256 1:CAS:528:DyaK1cXjsVenu7w%3D (Pubitemid 28297829)
20. AA Lammertsma CJ Hoekstra G Giaccone OS Hoekstra 2006 How should we analyse FDG PET studies for monitoring tumour response? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33 Suppl 1 16 21 16763817 10.1007/s00259-006-0131-5
21. NM Freedman SK Sundaram K Kurdziel JA Carrasquillo M Whatley JM Carson, et al. 2003 Comparison of SUV and Patlak slope for monitoring of cancer therapy using serial PET scans Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30 46 53 12483409 10.1007/s00259-002-0981-4 (Pubitemid 36692892)
22. SC Huang 2000 Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value Nucl Med Biol 27 643 646 11091106 10.1016/S0969-8051(00)00155-4 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7htVylsA%3D%3D
23. CK Kim NC Gupta 1996 Dependency of standardized uptake values of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose on body size: comparison of body surface area correction and lean body mass correction Nucl Med Commun 17 890 894 8951911 10.1097/00006231-199610000-00011 1:STN:280:DyaK2s7gvFKgsw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 26384235)
24. GM McDermott A Welch RT Staff FJ Gilbert L Schweiger SI Semple, et al. 2007 Monitoring primary breast cancer throughout chemotherapy using FDG-PET Breast Cancer Res Treat 102 75 84 16897427 10.1007/s10549-006-9316-7 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXhslCltrg%3D (Pubitemid 46294965)
25. RK Doot LK Dunnwald EK Schubert M Muzi LM Peterson PE Kinahan, et al. 2007 Dynamic and static approaches to quantifying 18F-FDG uptake for measuring cancer response to therapy, including the effect of granulocyte CSF J Nucl Med 48 920 925 17504870 10.2967/jnumed.106.037382 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXhtVert7fM (Pubitemid 46909920)
26. DA Mankoff M Muzi KA Krohn 2003 Quantitative positron emission tomography imaging to measure tumor response to therapy: what is the best method? Mol Imaging Biol 5 281 285 14630508 10.1016/j.mibio.2003.09.002 (Pubitemid 38100889)
27. R Boellaard WJ Oyen CJ Hoekstra OS Hoekstra EP Visser AT Willemsen, et al. 2008 The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35 2320 2333 18704407 10.1007/s00259-008-0874-2
28. G Brix J Zaers LE Adam ME Bellemann H Ostertag H Trojan, et al. 1997 Performance evaluation of a whole-body PET scanner using the NEMA protocol. National Electrical Manufacturers Association J Nucl Med 38 1614 1623 9379202 1:STN:280:DyaK1c%2FitFOmtw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 27443965)
29. R Boellaard A van Lingen AA Lammertsma 2001 Experimental and clinical evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) in dynamic PET: quantitative characteristics and effects on kinetic modeling J Nucl Med 42 808 817 11337581 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvkvVGgsQ%3D%3D (Pubitemid 32453474)
30. AP van der Weerdt LJ Klein R Boellaard CA Visser FC Visser AA Lammertsma 2001 Image-derived input functions for determination of MRGlu in cardiac (18)F-FDG PET scans J Nucl Med 42 1622 1629 11696630 (Pubitemid 33131320)
31. LM Velasquez R Boellaard G Kollia W Hayes OS Hoekstra AA Lammertsma, et al. 2009 Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies J Nucl Med 50 1646 1654 19759105 10.2967/jnumed.109.063347 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXhtlehsbjF
32. JF Eary DA Mankoff 1998 Tumor metabolic rates in sarcoma using FDG PET J Nucl Med 39 250 254 9476930 1:STN:280:DyaK1c7jsFOqtQ%3D%3D (Pubitemid 28114512)
33. KS Dai DY Tai P Ho CC Chen WC Peng ST Chen, et al. 2004 Accuracy of the EasyTouch blood glucose self-monitoring system: a study of 516 cases Clin Chim Acta 349 135 141 15469866 10.1016/j.cccn.2004.06.010 1:CAS:528: DC%2BD2cXotlaitbo%3D (Pubitemid 39311998)
34. SK Sundaram NM Freedman JA Carrasquillo JM Carson M Whatley SK Libutti, et al. 2004 Simplified kinetic analysis of tumor 18F-FDG uptake: a dynamic approach J Nucl Med 45 1328 1333 15299057 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXnsFSmurk%3D (Pubitemid 47618531)