UNLABELLED: We propose a standardized approach to quantitative molecular imaging (MI) in cancer patients with multiple lesions. METHODS: Twenty patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer underwent (18)F-FDG and (18)F-16β-fluoro-5-dihydrotestosterone ((18)F-FDHT) PET/CT scans. Using a 5-point confidence scale, 2 readers interpreted coregistered scan sets on a workstation. Two hundred three sites per scan (specified in a lexicon) were reviewed. (18)F-FDG-positive lesion bookmarks were propagated onto (18)F-FDHT studies and then manually accepted or rejected. Discordance-positive (18)F-FDHT lesions were similarly bookmarked. Lesional SUV(max) was recorded. Tracer- and tissue-specific background correction factors were calculated via receiver-operating-characteristic analysis of 65 scan sets. RESULTS: Readers agreed on more than 99% of (18)F-FDG- and (18)F-FDHT-negative sites. Positive-site agreement was 83% and 85%, respectively. Consensus-lesion maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) was highly reproducible (concordance correlation coefficient > 0.98). Receiver-operating-characteristic curves yielded 4 correction factors (SUV(max) 1.8-2.6). A novel scatterplot (Larson-Fox-Gonen plot) depicted tumor burden and change in SUV(max) for response assessments. CONCLUSION: Multilesion molecular imaging is optimized with a 5-step approach incorporating a confidence scale, site lexicon, semiautomated PET software, background correction, and Larson-Fox-Gonen graphing.
UNLABELLED: We propose a standardized approach to quantitative molecular imaging (MI) in cancerpatients with multiple lesions. METHODS: Twenty patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer underwent (18)F-FDG and (18)F-16β-fluoro-5-dihydrotestosterone ((18)F-FDHT) PET/CT scans. Using a 5-point confidence scale, 2 readers interpreted coregistered scan sets on a workstation. Two hundred three sites per scan (specified in a lexicon) were reviewed. (18)F-FDG-positive lesion bookmarks were propagated onto (18)F-FDHT studies and then manually accepted or rejected. Discordance-positive (18)F-FDHT lesions were similarly bookmarked. Lesional SUV(max) was recorded. Tracer- and tissue-specific background correction factors were calculated via receiver-operating-characteristic analysis of 65 scan sets. RESULTS: Readers agreed on more than 99% of (18)F-FDG- and (18)F-FDHT-negative sites. Positive-site agreement was 83% and 85%, respectively. Consensus-lesion maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) was highly reproducible (concordance correlation coefficient > 0.98). Receiver-operating-characteristic curves yielded 4 correction factors (SUV(max) 1.8-2.6). A novel scatterplot (Larson-Fox-Gonen plot) depicted tumor burden and change in SUV(max) for response assessments. CONCLUSION: Multilesion molecular imaging is optimized with a 5-step approach incorporating a confidence scale, site lexicon, semiautomated PET software, background correction, and Larson-Fox-Gonen graphing.
Authors: Hani H Abujudeh; Giles W Boland; Rathachai Kaewlai; Pavel Rabiner; Elkarn F Halpern; G Scott Gazelle; James H Thrall Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lalitha K Shankar; John M Hoffman; Steve Bacharach; Michael M Graham; Joel Karp; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Steven Larson; David A Mankoff; Barry A Siegel; Annick Van den Abbeele; Jeffrey Yap; Daniel Sullivan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.057
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
Authors: Heather A Jacene; Sophie Leboulleux; Shingo Baba; Daniel Chatzifotiadis; Behnaz Goudarzi; Oleg Teytelbaum; Karen M Horton; Ihab Kamel; Katarzyna J Macura; Hua-Ling Tsai; Jeanne Kowalski; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-10-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Shauna L Hillman; Ming-Wen An; Michael J O'Connell; Richard M Goldberg; Paul Schaefer; Jan C Buckner; Daniel J Sargent Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Heiko Schöder; Andrew D Zelenetz; Paul Hamlin; Somali Gavane; Steven Horwitz; Matthew Matasar; Alison Moskowitz; Ariela Noy; Lia Palomba; Carol Portlock; David Straus; Ravinder Grewal; Jocelyn C Migliacci; Steven M Larson; Craig H Moskowitz Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gilles Créhange; Chien Peter Chen; Charles C Hsu; Norbert Kased; Fergus V Coakley; John Kurhanewicz; Mack Roach Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Dana E Rathkopf; Michael J Morris; Josef J Fox; Daniel C Danila; Susan F Slovin; Jeffrey H Hager; Peter J Rix; Edna Chow Maneval; Isan Chen; Mithat Gönen; Martin Fleisher; Steven M Larson; Charles L Sawyers; Howard I Scher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alan L Ho; Ravinder K Grewal; Rebecca Leboeuf; Eric J Sherman; David G Pfister; Desiree Deandreis; Keith S Pentlow; Pat B Zanzonico; Sofia Haque; Somali Gavane; Ronald A Ghossein; Julio C Ricarte-Filho; José M Domínguez; Ronglai Shen; R Michael Tuttle; Steve M Larson; James A Fagin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hebert Alberto Vargas; Cecilia Wassberg; Josef J Fox; Andreas Wibmer; Debra A Goldman; Deborah Kuk; Mithat Gonen; Steven M Larson; Michael J Morris; Howard I Scher; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 11.105