Literature DB >> 18552153

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.

Matthias R Benz1, Vladimir Evilevitch, Martin S Allen-Auerbach, Fritz C Eilber, Michael E Phelps, Johannes Czernin, Wolfgang A Weber.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Measurements of tumor glucose use by (18)F-FDG PET need to be standardized within and across institutions. Various parameters are used for measuring changes in tumor glucose metabolic activity with (18)F-FDG PET in response to cancer treatments. However, it is unknown which of these provide the lowest variability between observers. Knowledge of the interobserver variability of quantitative parameters is important in sarcomas as these tumors are frequently large and demonstrate heterogeneous (18)F-FDG uptake.
METHODS: A total of 33 patients (16 men, 17 women; mean age, 47 +/- 18 y) with high-grade sarcomas underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Two independent investigators measured the following parameters on the pretreatment and posttreatment scans: maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), peak SUV (SUVpeak), mean SUV (SUVmean), SUVmean in an automatically defined volume (SUVauto), and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR). The variability of the different parameters was compared by concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), variability effect coefficient, and Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: Baseline SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVmean, SUVauto, and TBR averaged 10.36, 7.78, 4.13, and 6.22 g/mL and 14.67, respectively. They decreased to 5.36, 3.80, 1.79, and 3.25 g/mL and 6.62, respectively, after treatment. SUVmax, SUVpeak, and SUVauto measurements and their changes were reproducible (CCC > or = 0.98). However, SUVauto poorly differentiated between responding and nonresponding tumors. The high intratumoral heterogeneity of (18)F-FDG resulted in frequent failure of the thresholding algorithm, which necessitated manual corrections that in turn resulted in a higher interobserver variability of SUVmean (CCCs for follow-up and change were 0.96 and 0.91, respectively; P < 0.005). TBRs also showed a significantly higher variability than did SUVpeak (CCCs for follow-up and change were 0.94 and 0.86, respectively; P < 0.005).
CONCLUSION: SUVmax and SUVpeak provided the most robust measurements of tumor glucose metabolism in sarcomas. Delineation of the whole-tumor volume by semiautomatic thresholding did not decrease the variability of SUV measurements. TBRs were significantly more observer-dependent than were absolute SUVs. These findings should be considered for standardization of clinical (18)F-FDG PET/CT trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18552153      PMCID: PMC4070847          DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.107.050187

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


  35 in total

1.  A threshold method to improve standardized uptake value reproducibility.

Authors:  J R Lee; M T Madsen; D Bushnel; Y Menda
Journal:  Nucl Med Commun       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 1.690

2.  Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials.

Authors:  Lalitha K Shankar; John M Hoffman; Steve Bacharach; Michael M Graham; Joel Karp; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Steven Larson; David A Mankoff; Barry A Siegel; Annick Van den Abbeele; Jeffrey Yap; Daniel Sullivan
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  Interobserver and intraobserver variability of standardized uptake value measurements in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Edith M Marom; Reginald F Munden; Mylene T Truong; Gregory W Gladish; Donald A Podoloff; Osama Mawlawi; Lyle D Broemeling; John F Bruzzi; Homer A Macapinlac
Journal:  J Thorac Imaging       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.000

Review 4.  Monitoring cancer treatment with PET/CT: does it make a difference?

Authors:  Wolfgang A Weber; Robert Figlin
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Early 18F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment versus visual analysis.

Authors:  Chieh Lin; Emmanuel Itti; Corinne Haioun; Yolande Petegnief; Alain Luciani; Jehan Dupuis; Gaetano Paone; Jean-Noël Talbot; Alain Rahmouni; Michel Meignan
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 6.  Monitoring chemotherapy and radiotherapy of solid tumors.

Authors:  Wolfgang A Weber; Hinrich Wieder
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  18F-FDG PET for assessment of therapy response and preoperative re-evaluation after neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Susanne Martina Eschmann; Godehard Friedel; Frank Paulsen; Matthias Reimold; Thomas Hehr; Wilfried Budach; Heinz-Jakob Langen; Roland Bares
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-11-14       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  Monitoring of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Caroline Rousseau; Anne Devillers; Christine Sagan; Ludovic Ferrer; Boumédiène Bridji; Loïc Campion; Myriam Ricaud; Emmanuelle Bourbouloux; Isabelle Doutriaux; Martine Clouet; Dominique Berton-Rigaud; Catherine Bouriel; Valérie Delecroix; Etienne Garin; Sophie Rouquette; Isabelle Resche; Pierre Kerbrat; Jean François Chatal; Mario Campone
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-11-06       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Accuracy of PET for diagnosis of solid pulmonary lesions with 18F-FDG uptake below the standardized uptake value of 2.5.

Authors:  Yaichiro Hashimoto; Tetsuya Tsujikawa; Chisato Kondo; Masako Maki; Mitsuru Momose; Atsushi Nagai; Takamasa Ohnuki; Toshio Nishikawa; Kiyoko Kusakabe
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  41 in total

1.  Positron emission tomography with [(18)F]-3'-deoxy-3'fluorothymidine (FLT) as a predictor of outcome in patients with locally advanced resectable rectal cancer: a pilot study.

Authors:  Farrokh Dehdashti; Perry W Grigsby; Robert J Myerson; Ilke Nalbantoglu; Changqing Ma; Barry A Siegel
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.488

2.  Instrumentation factors affecting variance and bias of quantifying tracer uptake with PET/CT.

Authors:  R K Doot; J S Scheuermann; P E Christian; J S Karp; P E Kinahan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Developments in oncological positron emission tomography/computed tomography assessment.

Authors:  Carsten Kobe; Ronald Boellaard; Jürgen Wolf; Georg Kuhnert; Markus Dietlein; Bernd Neumaier; Alexander Drzezga; Deniz Kahraman
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Study of an image-derived SUV and a modified SUV using mouse FDG-PET.

Authors:  Xiujuan Zheng; Chin-Lung Yu; Wei Sha; Caius Radu; Sung-Cheng Huang; Dagan Feng
Journal:  Nucl Med Biol       Date:  2010-12-03       Impact factor: 2.408

Review 5.  Multimodality image registration with software: state-of-the-art.

Authors:  Piotr J Slomka; Richard P Baum
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  SUV and segmentation: pressing challenges in tumour assessment and treatment.

Authors:  Giovanni Lucignani
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  Positron emission tomography for the evaluation of soft-tissue sarcomas and bone sarcomas.

Authors:  Cristina Nanni; Maria Cristina Marzola; Domenico Rubello; Stefano Fanti
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  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

9.  FDG-PET/CT Imaging Predicts Histopathologic Treatment Responses after Neoadjuvant Therapy in Adult Primary Bone Sarcomas.

Authors:  Matthias R Benz; Johannes Czernin; William D Tap; Jeffrey J Eckardt; Leanne L Seeger; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Sarah M Dry; Michael E Phelps; Wolfgang A Weber; Fritz C Eilber
Journal:  Sarcoma       Date:  2010-04-18

10.  FDG-PET/CT imaging biomarkers in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Vasavi Paidpally; Alin Chirindel; Stella Lam; Nishant Agrawal; Harry Quon; Rathan M Subramaniam
Journal:  Imaging Med       Date:  2012-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.