Literature DB >> 19424100

Evaluation of different normalization procedures for the calculation of the standardized uptake value in therapy response monitoring studies.

Dennis Vriens1, Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei, Hanneke W van Laarhoven, Johanna N H Timmer-Bonte, Paul F M Krabbe, Eric P Visser, Wim J G Oyen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective study was to assess the influence of different normalization procedures on relative changes in standardized uptake values (SUV) of F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for the assessment of chemotherapy response in patients with colorectal carcinoma (CRC) and nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC).
METHODS: In 97 patients with CRC (n = 48) and NSCLC (n = 49), FDG-PET was performed before and during the course of chemotherapy. Relative changes in SUV (DeltaSUV) were determined after correction for injected dose and bodyweight, lean body mass, body surface area or a combination of bodyweight and plasma glucose. The predictive value for overall and progression-free survival with respect to the different normalized DeltaSUVs was assessed.
RESULTS: In both CRC and NSCLC, no differences were seen in the degree of change between the four SUV-normalizations during chemotherapy. Cox regression analysis for overall survival showed significant hazard ratios of 1.14-1.16 per 10% SUV change in CRC and 1.10-1.13 in NSCLC and for progression-free survival hazard ratios of 1.15 per 10% DeltaSUV change in CRC and 1.10-1.12 in NSCLC.
CONCLUSION: Relative changes in SUV is a strong predictor for survival in both CRC and NSCLC. None of the four normalization methods showed statistical advantage over the other. Therefore, simplifying the methods for analysis of FDG-PET data can improve the incorporation of FDG-PET in clinical treatment-response monitoring and may facilitate application in multicentre trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19424100     DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e32832bdc80

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nucl Med Commun        ISSN: 0143-3636            Impact factor:   1.690


  6 in total

Review 1.  Clinical utility of quantitative imaging.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Rathan M Subramaniam; Leon Lenchik
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Natural growth and disease progression of non-small cell lung cancer evaluated with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT.

Authors:  Jingbo Wang; Pawinee Mahasittiwat; Ka Kit Wong; Leslie E Quint; Feng-Ming Spring Kong
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2012-07-28       Impact factor: 5.705

3.  How Does the Patient Benefit from Clinical PET?

Authors:  Jens Sörensen
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 11.556

4.  Estradiol modulates neural response to conspecific and heterospecific song in female house sparrows: An in vivo positron emission tomography study.

Authors:  Christine R Lattin; Frank A Stabile; Richard E Carson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Evaluation of SUVlean consistency in FDG and PSMA PET/MR with Dixon-, James-, and Janma-based lean body mass correction.

Authors:  Jun Zhao; Qiaoyi Xue; Xing Chen; Zhiwen You; Zhe Wang; Jianmin Yuan; Hui Liu; Lingzhi Hu
Journal:  EJNMMI Phys       Date:  2021-02-17

6.  CT versus FDG-PET/CT response evaluation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab.

Authors:  Kristin Skougaard; Helle Hjorth Johannesen; Dorte Nielsen; Jakob Vasehus Schou; Benny Vittrup Jensen; Estrid V S Høgdall; Helle Westergren Hendel
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 4.452

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.