Literature DB >> 19956382

PET/CT Assessment of Response to Therapy: Tumor Change Measurement, Truth Data, and Error.

Paul E Kinahan1, Robert K Doot, Michelle Wanner-Roybal, Luc M Bidaut, Samuel G Armato, Charles R Meyer, Geoffrey McLennan.   

Abstract

We describe methods and issues that are relevant to the measurement of change in tumor uptake of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) or other radiotracers, as measured from positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) images, and how this would relate to the establishment of PET/CT tumor imaging as a biomarker of patient response to therapy. The primary focus is on the uptake of FDG by lung tumors, but the approach can be applied to diseases other than lung cancer and to tracers other than FDG. The first issue addressed is the sources of bias and variance in the measurement of tumor uptake of FDG, and where there are still gaps in our knowledge. These are discussed in the context of measurement variation and how these would relate to the early detection of response to therapy. Some of the research efforts currently underway to identify the magnitude of some of these sources of error are described. In addition, we describe resources for these investigations that are being made available through the Reference Image Database for the Evaluation of Response project. Measures derived from PET image data that might be predictive of patient response as well as the additional issues that each of these metrics may encounter are described briefly. The relationship between individual patient response to therapy and utility for multicenter trials is discussed. We conclude with a discussion of moving from assessing measurement variation to the steps necessary to establish the efficacy of PET/CT imaging as a biomarker for response.

Entities:  

Year:  2009        PMID: 19956382      PMCID: PMC2781074          DOI: 10.1593/tlo.09223

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Oncol        ISSN: 1936-5233            Impact factor:   4.243


  39 in total

1.  Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value.

Authors:  S C Huang
Journal:  Nucl Med Biol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.408

Review 2.  Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-04-20       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner.

Authors:  P E Kinahan; D W Townsend; T Beyer; D Sashin
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Monitoring primary breast cancer throughout chemotherapy using FDG-PET.

Authors:  Garry M McDermott; Andrew Welch; Roger T Staff; Fiona J Gilbert; Lutz Schweiger; Scott I K Semple; Tim A D Smith; Andrew W Hutcheon; Iain D Miller; Ian C Smith; Steven D Heys
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2006-08-09       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group.

Authors:  H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 6.  Imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Rodney J Hicks; Eddie Lau; Naveed Z Alam; Robert Y Chen
Journal:  Respirology       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 6.424

7.  Tumor Treatment Response Based on Visual and Quantitative Changes in Global Tumor Glycolysis Using PET-FDG Imaging. The Visual Response Score and the Change in Total Lesion Glycolysis.

Authors:  Steven M. Larson; Yusuf Erdi; Timothy Akhurst; Madhu Mazumdar; Homer A. Macapinlac; Ronald D. Finn; Cecille Casilla; Melissa Fazzari; Neil Srivastava; Henry W.D. Yeung; John L. Humm; Jose Guillem; Robert Downey; Martin Karpeh; Alfred E. Cohen; Robert Ginsberg
Journal:  Clin Positron Imaging       Date:  1999-05

8.  Computed tomography assessment of response to therapy: tumor volume change measurement, truth data, and error.

Authors:  Michael F McNitt-Gray; Luc M Bidaut; Samuel G Armato; Charles R Meyer; Marios A Gavrielides; Charles Fenimore; Geoffrey McLennan; Nicholas Petrick; Binsheng Zhao; Anthony P Reeves; Reinhard Beichel; Hyun-Jung Grace Kim; Lisa Kinnard
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.243

9.  Standardized uptake values of FDG: body surface area correction is preferable to body weight correction.

Authors:  C K Kim; N C Gupta; B Chandramouli; A Alavi
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Disparity between in vivo EGFR expression and 89Zr-labeled cetuximab uptake assessed with PET.

Authors:  Hugo J W L Aerts; Ludwig Dubois; Lars Perk; Peter Vermaelen; Guus A M S van Dongen; Bradly G Wouters; Philippe Lambin
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2008-12-17       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  30 in total

1.  Variability in PET quantitation within a multicenter consortium.

Authors:  Frederic H Fahey; Paul E Kinahan; Robert K Doot; Mehmet Kocak; Harold Thurston; Tina Young Poussaint
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Quantitative imaging for evaluation of response to cancer therapy.

Authors:  Laurence P Clarke; Barbara S Croft; Robert Nordstrom; Huiming Zhang; Gary Kelloff; J Tatum
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.243

Review 3.  Doctor, what does my future hold? The prognostic value of FDG-PET in solid tumours.

Authors:  Giovanni Lucignani; Steven M Larson
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Longitudinal monitoring of reconstructed activity concentration on a clinical time-of-flight PET/CT scanner.

Authors:  Lawrence R MacDonald; Amy E Perkins; Chi-Hua Tung
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-11-23

5.  Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value.

Authors:  Martin A Lodge; Muhammad A Chaudhry; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Practical no-gold-standard evaluation framework for quantitative imaging methods: application to lesion segmentation in positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Abhinav K Jha; Esther Mena; Brian Caffo; Saeed Ashrafinia; Arman Rahmim; Eric Frey; Rathan M Subramaniam
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-03-03

7.  Quantitative imaging to assess tumor response to therapy: common themes of measurement, truth data, and error sources.

Authors:  Charles R Meyer; Samuel G Armato; Charles P Fenimore; Geoffrey McLennan; Luc M Bidaut; Daniel P Barboriak; Marios A Gavrielides; Edward F Jackson; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Paul E Kinahan; Nicholas Petrick; Binsheng Zhao
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.243

8.  Magnetic resonance assessment of response to therapy: tumor change measurement, truth data and error sources.

Authors:  Edward F Jackson; Daniel P Barboriak; Luc M Bidaut; Charles R Meyer
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.243

9.  Combined Injection of (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose and 3'-Deoxy-3'-[(18)F]fluorothymidine PET Achieves More Complete Identification of Viable Lung Cancer Cells in Mice and Patients than Individual Radiopharmaceutical: A Proof-of-Concept Study.

Authors:  Xiao-Feng Li; Tao Huang; Huijie Jiang; Xuemei Wang; Baozhong Shen; Xiangcheng Wang; Chin K Ng; Gregory C Postel; A Cahid Civelek
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 4.243

10.  Variance of SUVs for FDG-PET/CT is greater in clinical practice than under ideal study settings.

Authors:  Virendra Kumar; Kavindra Nath; Claudia G Berman; Jongphil Kim; Tawee Tanvetyanon; Alberto A Chiappori; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies; Edward A Eikman
Journal:  Clin Nucl Med       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 7.794

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.