Literature DB >> 21147377

Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy.

Paul E Kinahan1, James W Fletcher.   

Abstract

The use of standardized uptake values (SUVs) is now common place in clinical 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F] fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) position emission tomography-computed tomography oncology imaging and has a specific role in assessing patient response to cancer therapy. Ideally, the use of SUVs removes variability introduced by differences in patient size and the amount of injected FDG. However, in practice there are several sources of bias and variance that are introduced in the measurement of FDG uptake in tumors and also in the conversion of the image count data to SUVs. In this article the overall imaging process is reviewed and estimates of the magnitude of errors, where known, are given. Recommendations are provided for best practices in improving SUV accuracy.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21147377      PMCID: PMC3026294          DOI: 10.1053/j.sult.2010.10.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR        ISSN: 0887-2171            Impact factor:   1.875


  48 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.  Positron emission tomography-computed tomography reporting in radiation therapy planning and response assessment.

Authors:  Eric M Rohren
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.875

3.  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

Review 4.  Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis.

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

Review 5.  Progress and promise of FDG-PET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development.

Authors:  Gary J Kelloff; John M Hoffman; Bruce Johnson; Howard I Scher; Barry A Siegel; Edward Y Cheng; Bruce D Cheson; Joyce O'shaughnessy; Kathryn Z Guyton; David A Mankoff; Lalitha Shankar; Steven M Larson; Caroline C Sigman; Richard L Schilsky; Daniel C Sullivan
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-04-15       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  Image reconstruction for PET/CT scanners: past achievements and future challenges.

Authors:  Shan Tong; Adam M Alessio; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Imaging Med       Date:  2010-10-01

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.  Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard; Nanda C Krak; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  Combined assessment of metabolic and volumetric changes for assessment of tumor response in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas.

Authors:  Matthias R Benz; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Fritz C Eilber; Hui J J Chen; Sarah Dry; Michael E Phelps; Johannes Czernin; Wolfgang A Weber
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2008-09-15       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Optimum scanning protocol for FDG-PET evaluation of pulmonary malignancy.

Authors:  V J Lowe; D M DeLong; J M Hoffman; R E Coleman
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  153 in total

1.  Quantitative radiomics: impact of stochastic effects on textural feature analysis implies the need for standards.

Authors:  Matthew J Nyflot; Fei Yang; Darrin Byrd; Stephen R Bowen; George A Sandison; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-08-05

Review 2.  Computerized PET/CT image analysis in the evaluation of tumour response to therapy.

Authors:  W Lu; J Wang; H H Zhang
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Zero-Echo-Time and Dixon Deep Pseudo-CT (ZeDD CT): Direct Generation of Pseudo-CT Images for Pelvic PET/MRI Attenuation Correction Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks with Multiparametric MRI.

Authors:  Andrew P Leynes; Jaewon Yang; Florian Wiesinger; Sandeep S Kaushik; Dattesh D Shanbhag; Youngho Seo; Thomas A Hope; Peder E Z Larson
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  A virtual clinical trial comparing static versus dynamic PET imaging in measuring response to breast cancer therapy.

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

5.  Is There a Role for PET/CT Parameters to Characterize Benign, Malignant, and Metastatic Parotid Tumors?

Authors:  Ayse Tuba Karagulle Kendi; Kelly R Magliocca; Amanda Corey; James R Galt; Jeffrey Switchenko; J Trad Wadsworth; Mark W El-Deiry; David M Schuster; Nabil F Saba; Patricia A Hudgins
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  FDG PET-CT in follicular lymphoma: a case-based evidence review.

Authors:  Stephen D Smith; Mary Redman; Kieron Dunleavy
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2014-12-19       Impact factor: 22.113

7.  Biases in Multicenter Longitudinal PET Standardized Uptake Value Measurements.

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

8.  A Virtual Clinical Trial of FDG-PET Imaging of Breast Cancer: Effect of Variability on Response Assessment.

Authors:  Robert L Harrison; Brian F Elston; Robert K Doot; Thomas K Lewellen; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 4.243

9.  Heterogeneity in intratumor correlations of 18F-FDG, 18F-FLT, and 61Cu-ATSM PET in canine sinonasal tumors.

Authors:  Tyler J Bradshaw; Stephen R Bowen; Ngoneh Jallow; Lisa J Forrest; Robert Jeraj
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 10.  Morphology supporting function: attenuation correction for SPECT/CT, PET/CT, and PET/MR imaging.

Authors:  Tzu C Lee; Adam M Alessio; Robert M Miyaoka; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 2.346

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.