SUVmax of 2.5 should not be embraced as a magic threshold for separating benign from malignant lesions

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 40, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 1475-1477

  Kwee, Thomas C ^a   Cheng, Gang ^b,c   Lam, Marnix G E H ^a   Basu, Sandip ^d   Alavi, Abass ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; INCIDENTALOMA; LUNG NODULE; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; METASTASIS POTENTIAL; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RETINA IMAGE; STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUE; DIAGNOSTIC USE; METABOLISM; NEOPLASM; PREDICTIVE VALUE; SCINTISCANNING; STANDARD; PROTEIN BINDING;

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; PROTEIN BINDING; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT;

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROTEIN BINDING; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REFERENCE STANDARDS;

EID: 84885482355     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: 16197089     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-013-2484-x     Document Type: Editorial

References (17)

1. Hain SF, Curran KM, Beggs AD, Fogelman I, O'Doherty MJ, Maisey MN. FDG-PET as a metabolic biopsy tool in thoracic lesions with indeterminate biopsy. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:1336-40.
2. Beggs AD, Hain SF, Curran KM, O'Doherty MJ. FDG-PET as a metabolic biopsy tool in non-lung lesions with indeterminate biopsy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:542-6.
3. Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1431-4.
4. Graham MM, Badawi RD, Wahl RL. Variations in PET/CT methodology for oncologic imaging at U.S. academic medical centers: an imaging response assessment team survey. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:311-7.
5. 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.
6. Basu S, Alavi A. Partial volume correction of standardized uptake values and the dual time point in FDG-PET imaging: should these be routinely employed in assessing patients with cancer? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1527-9.
7. Basu S, Kwee TC, Torigian D, Saboury B, Alavi A. Suboptimal and inadequate quantification: an alarming crisis in medical applications of PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1381-2.
8. Hickeson M, Yun M, Matthies A, Zhuang H, Adam LE, Lacorte L, et al. Use of a corrected standardized uptake value based on the lesion size on CT permits accurate characterization of lung nodules on FDG-PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1639-47.
9. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:932-45.
10. Hoetjes NJ, van Velden FH, Hoekstra OS, Hoekstra CJ, Krak NC, Lammertsma AA, et al. Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1679-87.
11. Basu S, Saboury B, Torigian DA, Alavi A. Current evidence base of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the clinical management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: emerging significance of image segmentation and global disease assessment. Mol Imaging Biol. 2011;13:801-11.
12. Musiek ES, Saboury B, Mishra S, Chen Y, Reddin JS, Newberg AB, et al. Feasibility of estimation of brain volume and 2-deoxy-2-(18)F-fluoro-D-glucose metabolism using a novel automated image analysis method: application in Alzheimer's disease. Hell J Nucl Med. 2012;15:190-6.
13. Cheng G, Alavi A, Lim E, Werner TJ, Del Bello CV, Akers SR. Dynamic changes of FDG uptake and clearance in normal tissues. Mol Imaging Biol. 2013;15:345-52.
14. Cheng G, Torigian DA, Zhuang H, Alavi A. When should we recommend use of dual time-point and delayed time-point imaging techniques in FDG PET? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:779-87.
15. Sathekge MM, Maes A, Pottel H, Stoltz A, van de Wiele C. Dual time-point FDG PET-CT for differentiating benign from malignant solitary pulmonary nodules in a TB endemic area. S Afr Med J. 2010;100:598-601.
16. Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics. 1999;19:61-77.
17. Kwee TC, Basu S, Saboury B, Ambrosini V, Torigian DA, Alavi A. A new dimension of FDG-PET interpretation: assessment of tumor biology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1158-70.