PURPOSE: Standardized uptake values (SUV) are commonly used for quantification of whole-body [(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D: -glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) studies. Changes in SUV following therapy, however, only provide a proper measure of response in case of homogeneous FDG uptake in the tumour. The purpose of this study was therefore to implement and characterize a method that enables quantification of heterogeneity in tumour FDG uptake. METHODS: Cumulative SUV-volume histograms (CSH), describing % of total tumour volume above % threshold of maximum SUV (SUV(max)), were calculated. The area under a CSH curve (AUC) is a quantitative index of tumour uptake heterogeneity, with lower AUC corresponding to higher degrees of heterogeneity. Simulations of homogeneous and heterogeneous responses were performed to assess the value of AUC-CSH for measuring uptake and/or response heterogeneity. In addition, partial volume correction and image denoising was applied prior to calculating AUC-CSH. Finally, the method was applied to a number of human FDG scans. RESULTS: Partial volume correction and noise reduction improved CSH curves. Both simulations and clinical examples showed that AUC-CSH values corresponded with level of tumour heterogeneity and/or heterogeneity in response. In contrast, this correspondence was not seen with SUV(max) alone. The results indicate that the main advantage of AUC-CSH above other measures, such as 1/COV (coefficient of variation), is the possibility to measure or normalize AUC-CSH in different ways. CONCLUSION: AUC-CSH might be used as a quantitative index of heterogeneity in tracer uptake. In response monitoring studies it can be used to address heterogeneity in response.
PURPOSE: Standardized uptake values (SUV) are commonly used for quantification of whole-body [(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D: -glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) studies. Changes in SUV following therapy, however, only provide a proper measure of response in case of homogeneous FDG uptake in the tumour. The purpose of this study was therefore to implement and characterize a method that enables quantification of heterogeneity in tumour FDG uptake. METHODS: Cumulative SUV-volume histograms (CSH), describing % of total tumour volume above % threshold of maximum SUV (SUV(max)), were calculated. The area under a CSH curve (AUC) is a quantitative index of tumour uptake heterogeneity, with lower AUC corresponding to higher degrees of heterogeneity. Simulations of homogeneous and heterogeneous responses were performed to assess the value of AUC-CSH for measuring uptake and/or response heterogeneity. In addition, partial volume correction and image denoising was applied prior to calculating AUC-CSH. Finally, the method was applied to a number of humanFDG scans. RESULTS: Partial volume correction and noise reduction improved CSH curves. Both simulations and clinical examples showed that AUC-CSH values corresponded with level of tumour heterogeneity and/or heterogeneity in response. In contrast, this correspondence was not seen with SUV(max) alone. The results indicate that the main advantage of AUC-CSH above other measures, such as 1/COV (coefficient of variation), is the possibility to measure or normalize AUC-CSH in different ways. CONCLUSION: AUC-CSH might be used as a quantitative index of heterogeneity in tracer uptake. In response monitoring studies it can be used to address heterogeneity in response.
Authors: Michael Sørensen; Michael R Horsman; Paul Cumming; Ole Lajord Munk; Susanne Keiding Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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
Authors: Boon-Keng Teo; Youngho Seo; Stephen L Bacharach; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Steven K Libutti; Himanshu Shukla; Bruce H Hasegawa; Randall A Hawkins; Benjamin L Franc Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nikie J Hoetjes; Floris H P van Velden; Otto S Hoekstra; Corneline J Hoekstra; Nanda C Krak; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Angela van Baardwijk; Christophe Dooms; Robert Jan van Suylen; Erik Verbeken; Monique Hochstenbag; Cary Dehing-Oberije; Dennis Rupa; Silvia Pastorekova; Sigrid Stroobants; Ulrich Buell; Philippe Lambin; Johan Vansteenkiste; Dirk De Ruysscher Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-05-23 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Catherine S Diefenbach; Joseph M Connors; Jonathan W Friedberg; John P Leonard; Brad S Kahl; Richard F Little; Lawrence Baizer; Andrew M Evens; Richard T Hoppe; Kara M Kelly; Daniel O Persky; Anas Younes; Lale Kostakaglu; Nancy L Bartlett Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Zéna Wimana; G Gebhart; T Guiot; B Vanderlinden; R Morandini; G Doumont; F Sherer; G Van Simaeys; S Goldman; G Ghanem; P Flamen Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Sara Carvalho; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Cary Oberije; Chintan Parmar; Wouter van Elmpt; Bart Reymen; Esther G C Troost; Michel Oellers; Andre Dekker; Robert Gillies; Hugo J W L Aerts; Philippe Lambin Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 4.089