Multivariate analysis of various factors affecting background liver and mediastinal standardized uptake values

Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 20-23

  Kuruva, Manohar ^a   Mittal, Bhagwant ^a   Abrar, Mohammed ^a   Kashyap, Raghava ^a   Bhattacharya, Anish ^a  

^a POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH   (India)

Author keywords

F 18 FDG PET CT; liver SUV; mediastinal SUV; standardized uptake value (SUV)

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; GLUCOSE;

ADULT; AGED; ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ARTICLE; BODY SURFACE; BODY WEIGHT; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DEPENDENT VARIABLE; DIABETES MELLITUS; FEMALE; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; LEAN BODY WEIGHT; LIVER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDIASTINUM; MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUE;

EID: 84876105092     PISSN: 09723919     EISSN: 09740244     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4103/0972-3919.108835     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Zijlstra JM, Comans EF, van Lingen A, Hoekstra OS, Gundy CM, Willem Coebergh J, et al. FDG PET in lymphoma: The need for standardization of interpretation. An observer variation study. Nucl Med Commun 2007;28:798-803.
2. Zaidi H, editor. Quantitative Analysis in Nuclear Medicine Imaging. New York: Springer; 2006.
3. Gjedde A. Calculation of cerebral glucose phosphorylation from brain uptake of glucose analogs in vivo: A re-examination. Brain Res Rev 1982;4:237-74.
4. Patlak CS, Blasberg RG, Fenstermacher JD. Graphical evaluation of blood-To-brain transfer constants from multiple-Time uptake data. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1983;3:1-7.
5. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 2009;50:11S-20.
6. 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-50.
7. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, Mottaghy FM, Dietlein M, Guermazi A, 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;25:571-8.
8. Horning SJ, Juweid ME, Schöder H, Wiseman G, McMillan A, Swinnen LJ, et al. Interim positron emission tomography (PETscans) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: An independent expert nuclear medicine evaluation of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group E3404 study. Blood 2010;115:775-7.
9. Barrington SF, Qian W, Somer EJ, Franceschetto A, Bagni B, Brun E, et al., Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:1824-33.
10. Itti E, Juweid ME, Haioun C, Yeddes I, Hamza-Maaloul F, El Bez I, et al. Improvement of early 18F-FDG PET interpretation in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: Importance of the reference background. J Nucl Med 2010;51:1857-62.
11. Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Stroobants SG, Vansteenkiste J, Nuyts J, Smit EF, et al. Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1304-9.
12. Hoekstra CJ, Paglianiti I, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, Postmus PE, Teule GJ, et al. Monitoring response to therapy in cancer using [F-18]-2-uoro-2-deo xy-D-glucose and positron emission tomography: An overview of different analytical methods. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:731-43.
13. 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;31:1471-9.
14. Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, Hoekstra O, Paans A, Visser E, et al. Quanti-cation of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: Effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI de-nition parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:392-404.
15. Takahashi Y, Oriuchi N, Otake H, Endo K, Murase K. Variability of lesion detectability and standardized uptake value according to the acquisition procedure and reconstruction among five PET scanners. Ann Nucl Med 2008;22:543-8.
16. Mankoff DA, Muzi M, Krohn KA. Quantitative positron emission tomography imaging to measure tumor response to therapy: What is the best method? Mol Imaging Biol 2003;5:281-5.
17. Minn H, Zasadny KR, Quint LE. Lung cancer: Reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-uoro-2-deoxy-D-glu cose uptake at PET. Radiology 1995;196:167-73.
18. Weber WA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1771-7.
19. Nahmias C, Wahl LM. Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med 2008;49:1804-8.
20. Paquet N, Albert A, Foidart J, Hustinx R. Within-patient variability of 18F-FDG: Standardized uptake values in normal tissues. J Nucl Med 2004;45:784-8.
21. Kanstrup IL, Klausen TL, Bojsen-Moller J, Magnusson P, Zerahn B. Variability and reproducibility of hepatic FDG uptake measured as SUV as well as tissue-To-blood background ratio using positronemission tomography in healthy humans. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 2009;29:108-13.
22. Kim CK, Gupta NC, Chandramouli B, Alavi A. Stardized uptake values of FDG: Body surface area correction is preferable to body weight correction. J Nucl Med 1994;35:164-7.
23. Kim CK, Gupta N. Dependency of standardized uptake values of -uorine-18 -uorodeoxy glucose on body size. Comparison of body surface area correction and lean body mass correction. Nucl Med Commun 1996;17:890-4.
24. Torizuka T, Tamaki N, Inokuma T, Magata Y, Sasayama S, Yonekura Y, et al. In vivo assessment of glucose metabolism in hepatocellular carcinoma with FDG-PET. J Nucl Med 1995;36:1811-7.