OBJECTIVE: An explanation for the discrepancies in the reported correlations between standardized uptake value (SUV) and survival might be the application of different SUV methodologies. The primary aim of this study was to examine the influence of using different methodologies on SUV-survival correlation. METHODS: Data were used from a prospective cohort study consisting of oesophageal cancer patients in whom preoperative fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography was performed. Various methodologies of SUV calculation/correction were correlated with the default (SUV A41% corrected for body surface area): different volume of interest definitions, different SUV normalization, with and without serum glucose correction, and with (PVC+ ) and without partial volume correction (PVC- ). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves using any type of SUV for the identification of potential correlation with disease-free survival were also compared. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were included for this study. Significant correlations were found between SUV A41% and all the other described SUVs: SUV 50% (r2=0.99; P< 0.001), SUV A50% (r2= 0.98; P< 0.001), SUVmax (r2= 0.98; P < 0.001), SUV A41% PVC+ (r2= 0.97; P < 0.001) and SUV A41% glucose (r2= 0.93; P <0.001). No correlation was found between volume of interest 41% and SUV A41%, with or without, PVC (P = 0.85 and P = 0.41). Significant correlations were found between SUVmax corrected for body surface area, SUVmax corrected for body weight (r2=0.96; P < 0.001) and SUV corrected for lean body mass (r2= 0.98; P < 0.001). ROC curves for various SUV methodologies showed an almost identical area under the curve for any type of SUV. CONCLUSION: A strong correlation was found between all the investigated SUV methodologies. Moreover, when looking for correlations between SUV and disease-free survival, the areas under the ROC curves were almost identical for any type of SUV methodology. 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health / Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
OBJECTIVE: An explanation for the discrepancies in the reported correlations between standardized uptake value (SUV) and survival might be the application of different SUV methodologies. The primary aim of this study was to examine the influence of using different methodologies on SUV-survival correlation. METHODS: Data were used from a prospective cohort study consisting of oesophageal cancerpatients in whom preoperative fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography was performed. Various methodologies of SUV calculation/correction were correlated with the default (SUV A41% corrected for body surface area): different volume of interest definitions, different SUV normalization, with and without serum glucose correction, and with (PVC+ ) and without partial volume correction (PVC- ). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves using any type of SUV for the identification of potential correlation with disease-free survival were also compared. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were included for this study. Significant correlations were found between SUV A41% and all the other described SUVs: SUV 50% (r2=0.99; P< 0.001), SUV A50% (r2= 0.98; P< 0.001), SUVmax (r2= 0.98; P < 0.001), SUV A41% PVC+ (r2= 0.97; P < 0.001) and SUV A41% glucose (r2= 0.93; P <0.001). No correlation was found between volume of interest 41% and SUV A41%, with or without, PVC (P = 0.85 and P = 0.41). Significant correlations were found between SUVmax corrected for body surface area, SUVmax corrected for body weight (r2=0.96; P < 0.001) and SUV corrected for lean body mass (r2= 0.98; P < 0.001). ROC curves for various SUV methodologies showed an almost identical area under the curve for any type of SUV. CONCLUSION: A strong correlation was found between all the investigated SUV methodologies. Moreover, when looking for correlations between SUV and disease-free survival, the areas under the ROC curves were almost identical for any type of SUV methodology. 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health / Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Authors: M Picchio; M Kirienko; P Mapelli; I Dell'Oca; E Villa; F Gallivanone; L Gianolli; C Messa; I Castiglioni Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Carsten Kobe; Matthias Scheffler; Arne Holstein; Thomas Zander; Lucia Nogova; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard; Bernd Neumaier; Roland T Ullrich; Markus Dietlein; Jürgen Wolf; Deniz Kahraman Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-04-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Albert Wu; Huaiyu Zheng; Jennifer Kraenzle; Ashley Biller; Carol D Vanover; Mary Proctor; Leslie Sherwood; Marlene Steffen; Chin Ng; Daniel J Mollura; Colleen B Jonsson Journal: ILAR J Date: 2012
Authors: Arman Rahmim; C Ross Schmidtlein; Andrew Jackson; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Charles Marcus; Saeed Ashrafinia; Madjid Soltani; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Chih-Yang Hsu; Mike Doubrovin; Chia-Ho Hua; Omar Mohammed; Barry L Shulkin; Sue Kaste; Sara Federico; Monica Metzger; Matthew Krasin; Christopher Tinkle; Thomas E Merchant; John T Lucas Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Matthijs C F Cysouw; Gerbrand M Kramer; Linda J Schoonmade; Ronald Boellaard; Henrica C W de Vet; Otto S Hoekstra Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 9.236