Variability of average SUV from several hottest voxels is lower than that of SUVmax and SUVpeak

European Radiology

Volumn 24, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 1964-1970

  Laffon, E ^a,b   Lamare, F ^a   De Clermont, H ^a   Burger, I A ^c   Marthan, R ^b  

^a HAUT LÉVÊQUE HOSPITAL   (France)

^b CENTRE DE RECHERCHE CARDIO THORACIQUE DE BORDEAUX   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Peak SUV; SUV repeatability; Treatment response monitoring; Uptake quantification

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; GLUCOSE; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CAMERA; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SIZE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DRUG UPTAKE; FEMALE; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; MALE; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MEASUREMENT REPEATABILITY; PET SCANNER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DEPTH DOSE; STANDARD; STANDARD UPTAKE VALUE; CANCER STAGING; DIAGNOSTIC USE; INTRAVENOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION; LUNG TUMOR; METABOLISM; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCINTISCANNING; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; INJECTIONS, INTRAVENOUS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84905563603     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: 14321084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3222-x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Visvikis D, Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze-Le Rest D (2012) The age of reason for FDG PET image-derived indices. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:1670-1672
2. Boellaard R (2009) Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 50:11S-20S
3. Wahl RL, Zasadny K, Helvie M, Hutchins GD, Weber B, Cody R (1993) Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol 11:2101-2111 (Pubitemid 23332245)
4. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumours. J Nucl Med 50:122S-150S
5. Visser EP, Boerman OC, Oyen WJG (2010) SUV: from silly useless value to smart uptake value. J Nucl Med 51:173-175
6. 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 51:268-276
7. Vanderhoek M, Perlman SB, Jeraj R (2012) Impact of the definition of peak standardized uptake value on quantification of treatment response. J Nucl Med 53:4-11
8. Burger IA, Huser DM, Burger C, von Schulthess GK, Buck A (2012) Repeatability of FDG quantification in tumor imaging: averaged SUVs are superior to SUVmax. Nucl Med Biol 39:666-670
9. 18F-FDG PET image-based parameters in oesophageal cancer and impact of tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:1191-1202
10. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I (2007) Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 48:932-945 (Pubitemid 46909922)
11. Bland JM, Altman DG (1996) Statistics notes: measurement error proportional to the mean. BMJ 313:106-108
12. Bland JM, Altman DG (1996) Statistics notes: measurement error. BMJ 313:744-746
13. Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA et al (2010) FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:181-200
14. Tixier F, Hatt M, Le Rest CC, Le Pogam A, Corcos L, Visvikis D (2012) Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 53:693-700
15. Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze Le Rest C, Pradier O, Visvikis D (2013) Robustness of intratumour F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:1662-1671
16. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T et al (1999) Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging 2:159-171
17. Chen HH, Chiu NT, Su WC, Guo HR, Lee BF (2012) Prognostic value of whole-body total lesion glycolysis at pretreatment FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology 264:559-566
18. Soussan M, Chouahnia K, Maisonobe J-A et al (2013) Prognostic implications of volume-based measurements on FDG PET/CT in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer after induction chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:668-676
19. Scheffler M, Zander T, Nogova L et al (2013) Prognostic impact of [18F]fluorothymidine and [18F]fluoro-D-glucose baseline uptakes in patients with lung cancer treated first-line with erlotinib. PLoS ONE 8:e53081
20. 18FDG-positive tissue thresholding in lung cancer. J Nucl Med Technol 41:186-191
21. Lambin P, Roelofs E, Reymen B et al (2013) Rapid learning health care in oncology - an approach towards decision support systems enabling customised radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 109:159-164
22. Ambrosini V, Nicolini S, Caroli P (2012) PET/CT imaging in different types of lung cancer: an overview. Eur J Radiol 81:988-1001
23. Laffon E, de Clermont H, Marthan R (2013) Variability of (18)F-FDG-positive lung lesion volume by thresholding. Eur Radiol 23:1131-1137
24. 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med 52:93S-100S
25. 18F-FDG uptake measurements in tumors: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Med 53:701-708