Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: Prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 40, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 985-996

  Lasnon, Charline ^a   Desmonts, Cédric ^b   Quak, Elske ^a   Gervais, Radj ^c   Do, Pascal ^c   Dubos Arvis, Catherine ^c   Aide, Nicolas ^a,d  

^a Haematology Institute   (France)

^b CAEN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^c François Baclesse Cancer Centre   (France)

^d CENTRE FRANÇOIS BACLESSE   (France)

Author keywords

Multicentre trials; NSCLC; PET; PSF; SUV; Tumour imaging

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SIZE; DRUG UPTAKE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTION; RADIATION DOSE FRACTIONATION; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOLOGICAL TRANSPORT; CARCINOMA, NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REFERENCE STANDARDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84879503181     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: 16197089     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-013-2391-1     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Lv YL, Yuan DM, Wang K, Miao XH, Qian Q, Wei SZ, et al. Diagnostic performance of integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography for mediastinal lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer: a bivariate systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:1350-8.
2. Eschmann SM, Friedel G, Paulsen F, Reimold M, Hehr T, Budach W, et al. 18F-FDG PET for assessment of therapy response and preoperative re-evaluation after neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:463-71.
3. 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;42:1605-13.
4. Bengtsson T, Hicks RJ, Peterson A, Port RE. 18F-FDG PET as a surrogate biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib: newly identified lesions are more informative than standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med 2012;53:530-7.
5. Hicks RJ. Role of 18F-FDG PET in assessment of response in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2009;50 Suppl 1:31S-42S.
6. Huang W, Zhou T, Ma L, Sun H, Gong H, Wang J, et al. Standard uptake value and metabolic tumor volume of (18)F-FDG PET/CT predict short-term outcome early in the course of chemoradiotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:1628-35.
7. Visser EP, Boerman OC, Oyen WJ. SUV: from silly useless value to smart uptake value. J Nucl Med 2010;51:173-5.
8. Dijkman BG, Schuurbiers OC, Vriens D, Looijen-Salamon M, Bussink J, Timmer-Bonte JN, et al. The role of (18)F-FDG PET in the differentiation between lung metastases and synchronous second primary lung tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:2037-47.
9. Hellwig D, Graeter TP, Ukena D, Groeschel A, Sybrecht GW, Schaefers HJ, et al. 18F-FDG PET for mediastinal staging of lung cancer: which SUV threshold makes sense? J Nucl Med 2007;48:1761-6.
10. Agarwal M, Brahmanday G, Bajaj SK, Ravikrishnan KP, Wong CY. Revisiting the prognostic value of preoperative (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in early-stage (I & II) non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:691-8.
11. Liao S, Penney BC, Wroblewski K, Zhang H, Simon CA, Kampalath R, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden on 18F-FDG PET in nonsurgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39:27-38.
12. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 2009;50 Suppl 1:11S-20S.
13. Boellaard R. Mutatis mutandis: harmonize the standard! J Nucl Med 2012;53:1-3.
14. Buckler AJ, Boellaard R. Standardization of quantitative imaging: the time is right, and 18F-FDG PET/CT is a good place to start. J Nucl Med 2011;52:171-2.
15. Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:181-200.
16. Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, Brown ML, Royal HD, Siegel BA, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med 2006;47:885-95.
17. Boellaard R, Oyen WJ, Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Visser EP, Willemsen AT, et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:2320-33.
18. Beyer T, Czernin J, Freudenberg LS. Variations in clinical PET/CT operations: results of an international survey of active PET/CT users. J Nucl Med 2011;52:303-10.
19. Lodge MA, Chaudhry MA, Wahl RL. Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med 2012;53:1041-7.
20. Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med 2012;53:1716-22.
21. Alessio AM, Stearns CW, Tong S, Ross SG, Kohlmyer S, Ganin A, et al. Application and evaluation of a measured spatially variant system model for PET image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010;29:938-49.
22. Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, Hoekstra O, Paans A, Visser E, 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.
23. Lasnon C, Hicks RJ, Beauregard JM, Milner A, Paciencia M, Guizard AV, et al. Impact of point spread function reconstruction on thoracic lymph node staging with 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2012;37:971-6.
24. Boellaard R. Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med 2011;52 Suppl 2:93S-100S.
25. Kelly MD, Declerck JM. SUVref: reducing reconstruction-dependent variation in PET SUV. EJNMMI Res 2011;1:16.
26. Aide N, Desmonts C, Beauregard JM, Beyer T, Kinross K, Roselt P, et al. High throughput static and dynamic small animal imaging using clinical PET/CT: potential preclinical applications. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:991-1001.
27. Kadrmas DJ, Casey ME, Conti M, Jakoby BW, Lois C, Townsend DW. Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1315-23.
28. Andersen FL, Klausen TL, Loft A, Beyer T, Holm S. Clinical evaluation of PET image reconstruction using a spatial resolution model. Eur J Radiol 2012.
29. Mortazavi-Jehanno N, Giraudet AL, Champion L, Lerebours F, Le Stanc E, Edeline V, et al. Assessment of response to endocrine therapy using FDG PET/CT in metastatic breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39:450-60.
30. 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. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:1773-82.
31. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.
32. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
33. Zeng GL. Gibbs artifact reduction by nonnegativity constraint. J Nucl Med Technol 2011;39:213-9.
34. Boussion N, Cheze Le Rest C, Hatt M, Visvikis D. Incorporation of wavelet-based denoising in iterative deconvolution for partial volume correction in whole-body PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36:1064-75.
35. Levin Klausen T, Høgild Keller S, Vinter Olesen O, Aznar M, Andersen FL. Innovations in PET/CT. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;56:268-79.
36. 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 Suppl 1:122S-50S.
37. Vriens D, Visser EP, de Geus-Oei LF, Oyen WJ. Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:1408-25.
38. Vanderhoek M, Perlman SB, Jeraj R. Impact of the definition of peak standardized uptake value on quantification of treatment response. J Nucl Med 2012;53:4-11.
39. Velasquez LM, Boellaard R, Kollia G, Hayes W, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1646-54.
40. Benz MR, Evilevitch V, Allen-Auerbach MS, Eilber FC, Phelps ME, Czernin J, et al. Treatment monitoring by 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with sarcomas: interobserver variability of quantitative parameters in treatment-induced changes in histopathologically responding and nonresponding tumors. J Nucl Med 2008;49:1038-46.