The effect of volume of interest definition on quantification of lymph node immune response to a monkeypox virus infection assessed by 18F-FDG-PET

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 1997, Pages

  Chefer, Svetlana ^a   Reba, Richard C ^b   Leyson, Christopher Z ^a   Seidel, Jurgen ^a   Johnson, Reed F ^a   Blaney, Joseph E ^a   Jahrling, Peter B ^a   Dyall, Julie ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES   (United States)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Animal model; Intravenous inoculation; Monkeypox; PET, Immune response quantitation; SUV

Indexed keywords

EID: 84930817544     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13550-014-0049-z     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Dyall J, Johnson RF, Chen DY, Huzella L, Ragland DR, Mollura DJ, Byrum R, Reba RC, Jennings G, Jahrling PB, Blaney JE, Paragas J: Evaluation of monkeypox disease progression by molecular imaging.J Infect Dis 2011, 204:1902–1911.
2. Johnson RF, Dyall J, Ragland DR, Huzella L, Byrum R, Jett C, St Claire M, Smith AL, Paragas J, Blaney JE, Jahrling PB: Comparative analysis of monkeypox virus infection of cynomolgus macaques by the intravenous or intrabronchial inoculation route.J Virol 2011, 85:2112–2125.
3. Huang SC: Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value.Nucl Med Biol 2000, 27:643–646.
4. Thie JA: Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage.J Nucl Med 2004, 45:1431–1434.
5. Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ: A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements.AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010, 195:310–320.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Borst GR, Belderbos JS, Boellaard R, Comans EF, De Jaeger K, Lammertsma AA, Lebesque JV: Standardised FDG uptake: a prognostic factor for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer.Eur J Cancer 2005, 41:1533–1541.
10. Benz MR, Evilevitch V, Allen-Auerbach MS, Eilber FC, Phelps ME, Czernin J, Weber WA: 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, 49:1038–1046.
11. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Hoffmann M, Bergner R, Uppenkamp M, Eisenhut M, Pan L, Haberkorn U, Strauss LG: Prediction of short-term survival in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer following chemotherapy based on 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography: a feasibility study.Mol Imaging Biol 2007, 9:308–317.
12. Lucignani G: SUV and segmentation: pressing challenges in tumour assessment and treatment.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009, 36:715–720.
13. Higgins KA, Hoang JK, Roach MC, Chino J, Yoo DS, Turkington TG, Brizel DM: Analysis of pretreatment FDG-PET SUV parameters in head-and-neck cancer: tumor SUVmean has superior prognostic value.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012, 82:548–553.
14. Vriens D, De Geus-Oei LF, Van Laarhoven HW, Van Der Heijden HF, Krabbe PF, Visser EP, Oyen WJ: Comparison of two region of interest definition methods for metabolic response evaluation with [(1) (8)F]FDG-PET.Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010, 54:677–688.
15. Burger IA, Huser DM, Burger C, von Schulthess GK, Buck A: Repeatability of FDG quantification in tumor imaging: averaged SUVs are superior to SUVmax.Nucl Med Biol 2012, 39:666–670.
16. Tai YC, Ruangma A, Rowland D, Siegel S, Newport DF, Chow PL, Laforest R: Performance evaluation of the microPET focus: a third-generation microPET scanner dedicated to animal imaging.J Nucl Med 2005, 46:455–463.
17. Qi J, Leahy RM, Cherry SR, Chatziioannou A, Farquhar TH: High-resolution 3D Bayesian image reconstruction using the microPET small-animal scanner.Phys Med Biol 1998, 43:1001–1013.
18. Press WH: Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing. 2nd edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
19. Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.Lancet 1986, 1:307–310.
20. 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors.J Nucl Med 2008, 49:1804–1808.
21. Lodge MA, Chaudhry MA, Wahl RL: Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value.J Nucl Med 2012, 53:1041–1047.
22. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I: Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging.J Nucl Med 2007, 48:932–945.
23. Huang YE, Chen CF, Huang YJ, Konda SD, Appelbaum DE, Pu Y: Interobserver variability among measurements of the maximum and mean standardized uptake values on (18)F-FDG PET/CT and measurements of tumor size on diagnostic CT in patients with pulmonary tumors.Acta Radiol 2010, 51:782–788.
24. Graham M: Quantification of Radiotracer Uptake into Tissue. In Molecular Imaging: Principles and Practice. Edited by Weissleder R, Ross BD, Rehemtulla A, Gambhir SS, Shelton CT. USA: People’s Medical Pub. House; 2010:1258–1270.