Repeatability of 18F-FDG uptake measurements in tumors: A metaanalysis

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 53, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 701-708

  De Langen, Adrianus J ^a   Vincent, Andrew ^b   Velasquez, Linda M ^c   Van Tinteren, Harm ^b   Boellaard, Ronald ^d   Shankar, Lalitha K ^e   Boers, Maarten ^d   Smit, Egbert F ^a   Stroobants, Sigrid ^f   Weber, Wolfgang A ^g   Hoekstra, Otto S ^d  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b ANTONI VAN LEEUWENHOEK HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^c BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

^d ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^e NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^f ANTWERP UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^g UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

18F FDG; Cancer; PET; Repeatability

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; GLUCOSE DERIVATIVE; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DRUG TUMOR LEVEL; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MAXIMUM STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUE; MEAN STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUE; MEASUREMENT; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MONITORING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REPEATABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUE; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR DIAGNOSIS; TUMOR VOLUME; META ANALYSIS; METABOLISM; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; SCINTISCANNING; TRANSPORT AT THE CELLULAR LEVEL;

BIOLOGICAL TRANSPORT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84860736175     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.111.095299     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Avril N, Sassen S, Roylance R. Response to therapy in breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:55S-63S.
2. de Geus-Oei LF, Vriens D, van Laarhoven HW, van der Graaf WT, Oyen WJ. Monitoring and predicting response to therapy with 18F-FDG PET in colorectal cancer: A systematic review. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:43S-54S.
3. Hicks RJ. Role of 18F-FDG PET in assessment of response in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:31S-42S.
4. Hutchings M, Barrington SF. PET/CT for therapy response assessment in lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:21S-30S.
5. Krause BJ, Herrmann K, Wieder H, zum Buschenfelde CM. 18F-FDG PET and 18F-FDG PET/CT for assessing response to therapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:89S-96S.
6. Schöder H, Fury M, Lee N, Kraus D. PET monitoring of therapy response in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:74S-88S.
7. Martoni AA, Zamagni C, Quercia S, et al. Early 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D- glucose positron emission tomography may identify a subset of patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer who will not respond optimally to preoperative chemotherapy. Cancer. 2010;116:805-813.
8. McLarty K, Fasih A, Scollard DA, et al. 18F-FDG small-animal PET/CT differentiates trastuzumab-responsive from unresponsive human breast cancer xenografts in athymic mice. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1848-1856.
9. Prior JO, Montemurro M, Orcurto MV, et al. Early prediction of response to sunitinib after imatinib failure by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27:439-445.
10. Storto G, De RA, Pellegrino T, et al. Assessment of metabolic response to radioimmunotherapy with 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Radiology. 2010;254:245-252.
11. Herrmann K, Krause BJ, Bundschuh RA, Dechow T, Schwaiger M. Monitoring response to therapeutic interventions in patients with cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2009;39:210-232.
12. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228-247.
13. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: Consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:571-578. (Pubitemid 350002965)
14. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. 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. 1999;35:1773-1782. (Pubitemid 29512308)
15. Nevill AM, Copas JB. Using generalized linear models (GLMs) to model errors in motor performance. J Mot Behav. 1991;23:241-250.
16. 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)
17. Daly LE, Bourke GJ. Interpretation and Uses of Medical Statistics. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Science; 2000.
18. Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Stroobants SG, et al. Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1304-1309.
19. 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)
20. 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.
21. Nahmias C, Wahl LM. Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1804-1808.
22. Nakamoto Y, Zasadny KR, Minn H, Wahl RL. Reproducibility of common semiquantitative parameters for evaluating lung cancer glucose metabolism with positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose. Mol Imaging Biol. 2002;4:171-178. (Pubitemid 34272701)
23. Velasquez LM, Boellaard R, Kollia G, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1646-1654.
24. 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.
25. 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;50:122S-150S.
26. de Langen AJ, van den Boogaart VE, Marcus JT, Lubberink M. Use of H215OPET and DCE-MRI to measure tumor blood flow. Oncologist. 2008;13:631-644. (Pubitemid 351904908)
27. 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)
28. 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)
29. Cheebsumon P, van Velden FH, Yaqub M, et al. Effects of image characteristics on performance of tumor delineation methods: A test-retest assessment. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1550-1558.