Literature DB >> 15136627

Within-patient variability of (18)F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues.

Nancy Paquet1, Adelin Albert, Jacqueline Foidart, Roland Hustinx.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to evaluate the test-retest variability of standardized uptake values (SUVs) in normal tissues and the impact of various methods for measuring the SUV.
METHODS: SUVs were determined in 70 cancer-free patients (40 female and 30 male) on 2 occasions an average of 271 d apart. Mean values for body weight and height, blood glucose level, injected dose, and uptake period did not change between the 2 groups of studies. Four regions of interest (ROIs) were placed-on the liver, lung, mediastinum, and trapezius muscle. Mean and maximum SUVs normalized for body weight were obtained, and normalizations were then applied for lean body mass (LBM), LBM and blood glucose level, body surface area (BSA), and BSA and blood glucose level.
RESULTS: In the lungs and muscle, metabolic activity within the ROIs was significantly different in the 2 studies, no matter which method was used for the SUVs. The differences ranged from 0.02 to 0.1 for SUV normalized for body weight and SUV normalized for LBM and from 0.001 to 0.002 for SUV normalized for BSA. In the liver, results were similar for all SUVs, except for maximum SUV corrected for LBM and maximum SUV corrected for LBM and blood glucose level. The metabolic activity measured in the mediastinum was also comparable in the 2 studies, regardless of the type of SUV. When investigating whether any normalization method for SUVs reduces variability and improves test-retest concordance, we found no significant superiority for any. The best intraclass correlation coefficients were obtained with the SUV normalized for body weight, in both the liver and the mediastinum, but the coefficients of variation were similar for all 3 mean SUVs that were not corrected for glucose level (range, 10.8%-13.4%). However, normalizing for blood glucose level increased the variability and decreased the level of concordance between studies.
CONCLUSION: The SUVs measured in normal liver and mediastinum in cancer-free patients are stable over time, no matter which normalization is used. Correcting for blood glucose level increases the variability of the values and should therefore be avoided. Normalizing for BSA or LBM does not improve the reproducibility of the measurements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15136627

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  90 in total

1.  Detection of relevant colonic neoplasms with PET/CT: promising accuracy with minimal CT dose and a standardised PET cut-off.

Authors:  Wolfgang Luboldt; Teresa Volker; Bärbel Wiedemann; Klaus Zöphel; Ursula Wehrmann; Arne Koch; Todd Toussaint; Nasreddin Abolmaali; Markus Middendorp; Daniela Aust; Jörg Kotzerke; Frank Grünwald; Thomas J Vogl; Hans-Joachim Luboldt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  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

3.  Consistency Driven Respiratory Phase Alignment and Motion Compensation in PET/CT.

Authors:  Adam Alessio; Steve Kohlmyer; Paul Kinahan
Journal:  IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec (1997)       Date:  2007

Review 4.  Recommendations for 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis-2018 update: Japanese Society of Nuclear Cardiology recommendations.

Authors:  Shinichiro Kumita; Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Masao Miyagawa; Mitsuru Momose; Keisuke Kiso; Tokuo Kasai; Masanao Naya
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Adjustment of vascular 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose uptake values over time through a modeling approach.

Authors:  Pavlos P Kafouris; Iosif P Koutagiar; Alexandros T Georgakopoulos; Nikoletta K Pianou; Marinos G Metaxas; George M Spyrou; Constantinos D Anagnostopoulos
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 2.357

6.  Skeletal Muscle Metrics on Clinical 18F-FDG PET/CT Predict Health Outcomes in Patients with Sarcoma.

Authors:  Brent Foster; Robert D Boutin; Leon Lenchik; David Gedeon; Yu Liu; Vinay Nittur; Ramsey D Badawi; Chin-Shang Li; Robert J Canter; Abhijit J Chaudhari
Journal:  J Nat Sci       Date:  2018

7.  Metabolic tumour burden assessed by ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT associated with serum CA19-9 predicts pancreatic cancer outcome after resection.

Authors:  Hua-Xiang Xu; Tao Chen; Wen-Quan Wang; Chun-Tao Wu; Chen Liu; Jiang Long; Jin Xu; Ying-Jian Zhang; Run-Hao Chen; Liang Liu; Xian-Jun Yu
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  A contrast-oriented algorithm for FDG-PET-based delineation of tumour volumes for the radiotherapy of lung cancer: derivation from phantom measurements and validation in patient data.

Authors:  Andrea Schaefer; Stephanie Kremp; Dirk Hellwig; Christian Rübe; Carl-Martin Kirsch; Ursula Nestle
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-07-26       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  Differentiation of HIV-associated lymphoma from HIV-associated reactive adenopathy using quantitative FDG PET and symmetry.

Authors:  Joyce C Mhlanga; Daniel Durand; Hua-Ling Tsai; Christine M Durand; Jeffrey P Leal; Hao Wang; Richard Moore; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  Impact of PET/CT image reconstruction methods and liver uptake normalization strategies on quantitative image analysis.

Authors:  Georg Kuhnert; Ronald Boellaard; Sergej Sterzer; Deniz Kahraman; Matthias Scheffler; Jürgen Wolf; Markus Dietlein; Alexander Drzezga; Carsten Kobe
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.