Literature DB >> 10551235

Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction.

Y Sugawara1, K R Zasadny, A W Neuhoff, R L Wahl.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To reevaluate the relationships between standardized uptake values (SUVs) and body weight by using positron emission tomography (PET) with 2-[fluorine 18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: FDG PET scanning was performed in 138 female patients with known or suspected primary breast cancers. SUVs in blood and tumor (n = 79) were calculated by using body weight (SUVbw), ideal body weight (SUVibw), lean body mass (SUVlbm), and body surface area (SUVbsa) on images obtained 50-60 minutes after the injection of FDG.
RESULTS: There was a strong positive correlation between the blood SUVbw and body weight (r = 0.705, P < .001). The blood SUVibw reduced the weight dependence but showed a negative correlation with body weight (r = -0.296, P < .001). Both the blood SUVibm and SUVbsa eliminated the weight dependence and showed no correlation with body weight (r = -0.010, P = .904 and r = 0.106, P = .215, respectively). Although there was a wide variance in the tumor SUVbw, it showed a weak but significant positive correlation with body weight (r = 0.207, P = .033). Plots of the tumor SUVlbm and SUVbsa versus body weight showed relatively flat slopes.
CONCLUSION: SUVlbm and SUVbsa are weight-independent indices for FDG uptake, and SUVlbm appears to be more appropriate for quantifying FDG uptake to avoid overestimation of glucose utilization in obese patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10551235     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99nv37521

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  76 in total

1.  Lean body mass-based standardized uptake value, derived from a predictive equation, might be misleading in PET studies.

Authors:  Michael Hentschel; Ingo Brink
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-01-09       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  Measuring response to chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: methodological considerations.

Authors:  Nanda C Krak; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-04-22       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Independent prognostic value of whole-body metabolic tumor burden from FDG-PET in non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Hao Zhang; Kristen Wroblewski; Daniel Appelbaum; Yonglin Pu
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 2.924

4.  Usefulness of standardized uptake value normalized by individual CT-based lean body mass in application of PET response criteria in solid tumors (PERCIST).

Authors:  Atsushi Narita; Susumu Shiomi; Yutaka Katayama; Takashi Yamanaga; Hiromitsu Daisaki; Kazuo Hamada; Yasuyoshi Watanabe
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2016-02-12

5.  Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume and velocity in predicting head-and-neck cancer outcomes.

Authors:  Karen P Chu; James D Murphy; Trang H La; Trevor E Krakow; Andrei Iagaru; Edward E Graves; Annie Hsu; Peter G Maxim; Billy Loo; Daniel T Chang; Quynh-Thu Le
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2012-01-21       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial.

Authors:  Nanda C Krak; R Boellaard; Otto S Hoekstra; Jos W R Twisk; Corneline J Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-10-15       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  A weight index for the standardized uptake value in 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Joseph A Thie; Karl F Hubner; Francis P Isidoro; Gary T Smith
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.488

8.  Merkel cell carcinoma: Is there a role for 2-deoxy-2-[f-18]fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography?

Authors:  A Iagaru; A Quon; I R McDougall; S S Gambhir
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.488

9.  Measuring [(18)F]FDG uptake in breast cancer during chemotherapy: comparison of analytical methods.

Authors:  Nanda C Krak; Jacobus J M van der Hoeven; Otto S Hoekstra; Jos W R Twisk; Elsken van der Wall; Adriaan A Lammertsma
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-03-15       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  18F-FDG PET/CT as a prognostic factor in penile cancer.

Authors:  André Salazar; Eduardo Paulino Júnior; Paulo Guilherme O Salles; Raul Silva-Filho; Edna A Reis; Marcelo Mamede
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-08-24       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.