Literature DB >> 11091107

Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake.

M M Graham1, L M Peterson, R M Hayward.   

Abstract

Quantitative analysis of [(18)F]-fluoro-deoxyglucose (FDG) uptake is important in oncologic positron emission tomography (PET) studies to be able to set an objective threshold in determining if a tissue is malignant or benign, in assessing response to therapy, and in attempting to predict the aggressiveness of an individual tumor. The most common method used today for simple, clinical quantitation is standardized uptake value (SUV). SUV is normalized for body weight. Other potential normalization factors are lean body mass (LBM) or body surface area (BSA). More complex quantitation schemes include simplified kinetic analysis (SKA), Patlak graphical analysis (PGA), and parameter optimization of the complete kinetic model to determine FDG metabolic rate (FDGMR). These various methods were compared in a group of 40 patients with colon cancer metastatic to the liver. The methods were assessed by (1) correlation with FDGMR, (2) ability to predict survival using Kaplan-Meier plots, and (3) area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for distinguishing between tumor and normal liver. The best normalization scheme appears to be BSA with minor differences depending on the specific formula used to calculate BSA. Overall, PGA is the best predictor of outcome and best discriminator between normal tissue and tumor. SKA is almost as good. In conventional PET imaging it is worthwhile to normalize SUV using BSA. If a single blood sample is available, it is possible to use the SKA method, which is distinctly better. If more than one image is available, along with at least one blood sample, PGA is feasible and should produce the most accurate results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11091107     DOI: 10.1016/s0969-8051(00)00143-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nucl Med Biol        ISSN: 0969-8051            Impact factor:   2.408


  47 in total

1.  Is quantitation necessary for oncological PET studies? Against.

Authors:  Michael M Graham
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Quantitative fluorine 18 deoxyglucose uptake by myocardial positron emission tomography in rats.

Authors:  Nobuhiro Handa; Yasuhiro Magata; Eiji Tadamura; Takahiro Mukai; Takeshi Nishina; Senri Miwa; Yutaka Sakakibara; Takuya Nomoto; Junji Konishi; Kazunobu Nishimura; Masashi Komeda
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2002 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Positron emission tomography imaging approaches for external beam radiation therapies: current status and future developments.

Authors:  P M Price; M M Green
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-03-22       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  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

6.  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

7.  [F-18]-Fluoro-2-deoxy-D: -glucose positron emission tomography as a tool for early detection of immunotherapy response in a murine B cell lymphoma model.

Authors:  Coralie Chaise; Emmanuel Itti; Yolande Petegnief; Evelyne Wirquin; Christiane Copie-Bergman; Jean-Pierre Farcet; Marie-Hélène Delfau-Larue; Michel Meignan; Jean-Noël Talbot; Valérie Molinier-Frenkel
Journal:  Cancer Immunol Immunother       Date:  2006-12-14       Impact factor: 6.968

Review 8.  Dynamic whole-body PET imaging: principles, potentials and applications.

Authors:  Arman Rahmim; Martin A Lodge; Nicolas A Karakatsanis; Vladimir Y Panin; Yun Zhou; Alan McMillan; Steve Cho; Habib Zaidi; Michael E Casey; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-09-29       Impact factor: 9.236

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.  Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology.

Authors:  Nikie J Hoetjes; Floris H P van Velden; Otto S Hoekstra; Corneline J Hoekstra; Nanda C Krak; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.