Methodological Aspects of Multicenter Studies with Quantitative PET

Methods in Molecular Biology

Volumn 727, Issue , 2011, Pages 335-349

  Boellaard, Ronald ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

FDG; Multicenter; PET; Quantification; Standardization; Standardized uptake value; SUV

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); PRACTICE GUIDELINE; STANDARDIZATION; STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUE; ARTICLE; METHODOLOGY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUALITY CONTROL; STANDARD; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

EID: 79956320802     PISSN: 10643745     EISSN: 19406029     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-61779-062-1_18     Document Type: Chapter

References (40)

1. Fletcher, J.W., Djulbegovic, B., Soares, H.P., Siegel, B.A., Lowe, V.J., Lyman, G.H. et al. (2008) Recommendations on the use of F-18FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 49(3), 480–508.
2. Hoekstra, C.J., Stroobants, S.G., Hoekstra, O.S., Vansteenkiste, J., Biesma, B., Schramel, F.J., et al. (2003) The value of [18F]fluoro-2deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the selection of patients with stage IIIA-N2 non-small cell lung cancer for combined modality treatment. Lung Cancer 39(2), 151–7.
3. Mijnhout, G.S., Borgstein, P.J., Hoekstra, O.S., van Diest, P.J., Pijpers, R., Meijer, S., et al. (1999) Potential value of FDG-PET for initial regional staging in melanoma. J Invest Dermatol 113(3), 514.
4. van Tinteren, H., Hoekstra, O.S., Smit, E.F., van den Bergh, J.H., Schreurs, A.J., Stallaert, R.A., et al. (2002) Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial Lancet 359(9315), 1388–92.
5. Vansteenkiste, J.F., Stroobants, S.G. (2001) The role of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in respiratory oncology. Eur Respir J 17(4), 802–20.
6. Weber, W.A. (2006) Positron emission tomography as an imaging biomarker J Clin Oncol 24(20), 3282–92.
7. Zijlstra-Baalbergen, J.M., Hoekstra, O.S., Raaymakers, P.R., Comans, E.F., Huijgens, P.C., Hoeven, J.J., et al. (2000) FDG PET vs Ga-67 scintigraphy as a prognostic tool early during chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). J Nucl Med 41(5), 278P
8. Avril, N.E., Weber, W.A. (2005) Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET Radiol Clin North Am 43(1), 189–204.
9. Borst, G., Belderbos, J., Boellaard, R., Comans, E., de Jaeger, K., Lammertsma, A., et al. (2005) Prognostic significance of the 18FDG-PET standardized uptake value for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer patients after high-dose radiotherapy. Lung Cancer 49, S50.
10. Hoekstra, C.J., Paglianiti, I., Hoekstra, O.S., Smit, E.F., Postmus, P.E., Teule, G.J., et al. (2000) Monitoring response to therapy in cancer using [F-18]-2-fluouo-2-deoxy-Dglucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med 27(6), 731–43.
11. Larson, S.M., Schwartz, L.H. (2006) 18F-FDG PET as a candidate for “qualified biomarker”: functional assessment of treatment response in oncology. J Nucl Med 47(6), 901–3.
12. Weber, W.A.(2005) PET for response assessment in oncology: radiotherapy and chemotherapy Br J Radiol 78, 42–9.
13. Graham, M.M., Peterson, L.M., Hayward, R.M. (2000) Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake Nucl Med Biol 27(7), 647–55.
14. Hoekstra, C.J., Hoekstra, O.S., Stroobants, S.G., Vansteenkiste, J., Nuyts, J., Smit, E.F., et al. (2002) Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with F-18-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 43(10), 1304–9.
15. Hoekstra, C.J., Hoekstra, O.S., Lammertsma, A.A. (1999) On the use of image-derived input functions in oncological fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography studies. Eur J Nucl Med 26(11), 1489–92.
16. Boellaard, R., Krak, N.C., Hoekstra, O.S., Lammertsma, A.A. (2004) Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: A simulation study. J Nucl Med 45(9), 1519–27.
17. Krak, N.C., Boellaard, R., Hoekstra, O.S., Twisk, J.W.R., Hoekstra, C.J., Lammertsma, A.A. (2005) Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32(3), 294–301.
18. Shankar, L.K., Hoffman, J.M., Bacharach, S., Graham, M.M., Karp, J., Lammertsma, A.A., et al. (2006) Consensus recommendations for the use of F-18-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in national cancer institute trials. J Nucl Med 47(6), 1059–66.
19. Stahl, A., Ott, K., Schwaiger, M., Weber, W.A. (2004) Comparison of different SUV-based methods for monitoring cytotoxic therapy with FDG PET Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31(11), 1471–9.
20. Weber, W.A. (2005) Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome J Nucl Med 46(6), 983–95.
21. Boellaard, R., Oyen, W.J., Hoekstra, C.J., Hoekstra, O.S., Visser, E.P., Willemsen, A.T., 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(12), 2320–33,
22. Visvikis, D., Cheze-LeRest, C., Costa, D.C., Bomanji, J., Gacinovic, S., Ell, P.J. (2001) Influence of OSEM and segmented attenuation correction in the calculation of standardised uptake values for [18F]FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med 28(9), 1326–35.
23. Aerts, H.J., Bosmans, G., van Baardwijk, A.A., Dekker, A.L., Oellers, M.C., Lambin, P., et al. (2008) Stability of (18)F-Deoxyglucose uptake locations within tumor during radiotherapy for NSCLC: a prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71(5), 1402–7.
24. Westerterp, M., Pruim, J., Oyen, W., Hoekstra, O., Paans, A., Visser, E., et al. (2007) 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 34(3), 392–404.
25. Delbeke, D. (2006) Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with F-18-FDG PET/CT 1.0 J Nucl Med 47(5), 885–95. Erratum in J Nucl Med 47(6), 903.
26. Juweid, M.E., Stroobants, S., Hoekstra, O.S., Mottaghy, F.M., Dietlein, M., Guermazi, A., 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(5), 571–8.
27. Shankar, L.K. (2006) PET standardization, NIH findings: The importance of standardization of imaging in clinical trials J Nucl Med 47(12), 57N–58N.
28. Young, H., Baum, R., Cremerius, U., Herholz, K., Hoekstra, O., Lammertsma, A.A., et al. (1999) Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumourresponseusing[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(13), 1773–82.
29. Schelbert, H.R., Hoh, C.K., Royal, H.D., Brown, M., Dahlbom, M.N., Dehdashti, F., et al. (1998) Procedure guideline for tumor imaging using fluorine-18-FDG. Society of Nuclear Medicine J Nucl Med 39(7), 1302–5.
30. Geworski, L., Knoop, B.O., de Wit, M., Ivancevic, V., Bares, R., Munz, D.L. (2002) Multicenter comparison of calibration and cross calibration of PET scanners J Nucl Med 43(5), 635–9.
31. Thie, J.A. (2004) Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med 45(9), 1431–4.
32. Takahashi, Y., Oriuchi, N., Otake, H., Endo, K., Murase, K. (2008) Variability of lesion detectability and standardized uptake value according to the acquisition procedure and reconstruction among five PET scanners Ann Nucl Med 22(6), 543–8.
33. Jaskowiak, C.J., Bianco, J.A., Perlman, S.B., Fine, J.P. (2005) Influence of reconstruction iterations on F-18-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values. J Nucl Med 46(3), 424–8.
34. Lodge, M., Leal, J., Wahl, R. (2008) Quantifying metabolic tumor response to therapy: The influence of image noise on maximum and mean SUV J Nucl Med 49, 108P.
35. Leal, J., Lodge, M., Wahl, R. (2008) Reproducibility of SUV max for oncologic PET: Significant differences in quantification of the SAME study between PET-only and PET-CT analysis modes J Nucl Med 49, 107P.
36. Boellaard, R., Hoekstra, O.S., Lammertsma, A.A. (2008) Software tools for standardized analysis of FDG whole body studies in multicenter trials J Nucl Med 49, 159P.
37. Hoekstra, C.J., Stroobants, S.G., Smit, E.F., Vansteenkiste, J., van Tinteren, H., Postmus, P.E., et al. (2005) Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [F-18]-2-fluoro-2deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer J Clin Oncol 23(33), 8362–70.
38. Lammertsma, A.A., Hoekstra, C.J., Giaccone, G., Hoekstra, O.S. (2006) How should we analyse FDG PET studies for monitoring tumour response Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33, S16–S21.
39. Hunter, G.J., Hamberg, L.M., Alpert, N.M., Choi, N.C., Fischman, A.J. (1996) Simplified measurement of deoxyglucose utilization rate J Nucl Med 37(6), 950–5.
40. Sadato, N., Tsuchida, T., Nakaumra, S., Waki, A., Uematsu, H., Takahashi, N., 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(6), 559–64.