Literature DB >> 12458398

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

Taner Erselcan1, Bulent Turgut, Derya Dogan, Semra Ozdemir.   

Abstract

The standardized uptake value (SUV) has gained recognition in recent years as a semiquantitative evaluation parameter in positron emission tomography (PET) studies. However, there is as yet no consensus on the way in which this index should be determined. One of the confusing factors is the normalisation procedure. Among the proposed anthropometric parameters for normalisation is lean body mass (LBM); LBM has been determined by using a predictive equation in most if not all of the studies. In the present study, we assessed the degree of agreement of various LBM predictive equations with a reference method. Secondly, we evaluated the impact of predicted LBM values on a hypothetical value of 2.5 SUV, normalised to LBM (SUV(LBM)), by using various equations. The study population consisted of 153 women, aged 32.3+/-11.8 years (mean+/-SD), with a height of 1.61+/-0.06 m, a weight of 71.1+/-17.5 kg, a body surface area of 1.77+/-0.22 m(2) and a body mass index of 27.6+/-6.9 kg/m(2). LBM (44.2+/-6.6 kg) was measured by a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) method. A total of nine equations from the literature were evaluated, four of them from recent PET studies. Although there was significant correlation between predicted and measured LBM values, 95% limits of agreement determined by the Bland and Altman method showed a wide range of variation in predicted LBM values as compared with DEXA, no matter which predictive equation was used. Moreover, only one predictive equation was not statistically different in the comparison of means (DEXA and predicted LBM values). It was also shown that the predictive equations used in this study yield a wide range of SUV(LBM) values from 1.78 to 5.16 (29% less or 107% more) for an SUV of 2.5. In conclusion, this study suggests that estimation of LBM by use of a predictive equation may cause substantial error for an individual, and that if LBM is chosen for the SUV normalisation procedure, it should be measured, not predicted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12458398     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-002-0974-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  13 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.  Can body volume be determined by PET?

Authors:  Michael Hentschel; Dominik Paul; Ulrike Korsten-Reck; Michael Mix; Frank Müller; Stefan Merk; Ernst Moser; Ingo Brink
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Fifteen different 18F-FDG PET/CT qualitative and quantitative parameters investigated as pathological response predictors of locally advanced rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

Authors:  Anna Margherita Maffione; Alice Ferretti; Gaia Grassetto; Elena Bellan; Carlo Capirci; Sotirios Chondrogiannis; Marcello Gava; Maria Cristina Marzola; Lucia Rampin; Claudia Bondesan; Patrick M Colletti; Domenico Rubello
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-02-16       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Factors influencing the uptake of 18F-fluoroestradiol in patients with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Lanell M Peterson; Brenda F Kurland; Jeanne M Link; Erin K Schubert; Svetlana Stekhova; Hannah M Linden; David A Mankoff
Journal:  Nucl Med Biol       Date:  2011-05-05       Impact factor: 2.408

6.  Direct Determination of Lean Body Mass by CT in F-18 FDG PET/CT Studies: Comparison with Estimates Using Predictive Equations.

Authors:  Chang Guhn Kim; Woo Hyoung Kim; Myoung Hyoun Kim; Dae-Weung Kim
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-05-07

7.  The appropriate whole-body index on which to base standardized uptake value in 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fludeoxyglucose PET.

Authors:  G Keramida; J Hunter; S Dizdarevic; A M Peters
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-06-17       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  The preoperative SUVmax is superior to ADCmin of the primary tumour as a predictor of disease recurrence and survival in patients with endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Keiichiro Nakamura; Ikuo Joja; Chikako Fukushima; Tomoko Haruma; Chiaki Hayashi; Tomoyuki Kusumoto; Noriko Seki; Atsushi Hongo; Yuji Hiramatsu
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-09-12       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  Correlation of 18F-FDG/PET SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV, and TLG with HIF-1α in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

Authors:  Zümrüt Arda Kaymak; Nermin Karahan; Mehmet Erdoğan; Evrim Erdemoğlu; İsmail Zihni; Sevim Süreyya Şengül
Journal:  Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther       Date:  2021-06-03

10.  Analysis and interpretation of dynamic FDG PET oncological studies using data reduction techniques.

Authors:  Sotiris Pavlopoulos; Trias Thireou; George Kontaxakis; Andres Santos
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2007-10-03       Impact factor: 2.819

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.