OBJECTIVE: There is growing interest in using PET/CT for evaluating early response to therapy in cancer treatment. Although widely available and convenient to use, standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements can be influenced by a variety of biologic and technologic factors. Many of these factors can be addressed with close attention to detail and appropriate quality control. This article will review factors potentially affecting SUV measurements and provide recommendations on ways to minimize when using serial PET to assess early response to therapy. CONCLUSION: Scanner and reconstruction parameters can significantly affect SUV measurements. When using serial SUV measurements to assess early response to therapy, imaging should be performed on the same scanner using the same image acquisition and reconstruction protocols. In addition, attention to detail is required for accurate determination of the administered radiopharmaceutical dose.
OBJECTIVE: There is growing interest in using PET/CT for evaluating early response to therapy in cancer treatment. Although widely available and convenient to use, standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements can be influenced by a variety of biologic and technologic factors. Many of these factors can be addressed with close attention to detail and appropriate quality control. This article will review factors potentially affecting SUV measurements and provide recommendations on ways to minimize when using serial PET to assess early response to therapy. CONCLUSION: Scanner and reconstruction parameters can significantly affect SUV measurements. When using serial SUV measurements to assess early response to therapy, imaging should be performed on the same scanner using the same image acquisition and reconstruction protocols. In addition, attention to detail is required for accurate determination of the administered radiopharmaceutical dose.
Authors: Claire Brown; Ben Howes; Glyn G Jamieson; Dylan Bartholomeusz; Urs Zingg; Thomas R Sullivan; Sarah K Thompson Journal: World J Surg Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Selin Carkaci; Beatriz E Adrada; Eric Rohren; Wei Wei; Mohammad A Quraishi; Osama Mawlawi; Thomas A Buchholz; Wei Yang Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Andrei Iagaru; Camila Mosci; David W Dick; Mike Sathekge; Paula Lapa; Joao M de Lima; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-09-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Kristen A Wangerin; Mark Muzi; Lanell M Peterson; Hannah M Linden; Alena Novakova; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Robert K Doot; Larry A Pierce; Darrin Byrd; Brian Elston; Keith C Allberg; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
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