M Regier1, T Derlin, D Schwarz, A Laqmani, F O Henes, M Groth, J-H Buhk, H Kooijman, G Adam. 1. Center for Radiology and Endoscopy, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany. mregier@uke.uni-hamburg.de
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To investigate the potential correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient assessed by diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) and glucose metabolism determined by the standardized uptake value (SUV) at 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 18F-FDG PET/CT and DWI (TR/TE, 2000/66 ms; b-values, 0 and 500 s/mm(2)) were performed in 41 consecutive patients with histologically verified NSCLC. Analysing the PET-CT data calculation of the mean (SUV(mean)) and maximum (SUV(max)) SUV was performed. By placing a region-of-interest (ROI) encovering the entire tumor mean (ADC(mean)) and minimum ADC (ADC(min)) were determined by two independent radiologists. Results of 18F-FDG PET-CT and DWI were compared on a per-patient basis. For statistical analysis Pearson's correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman and regression analysis were assessed. RESULTS: Data analysis revealed a significant inverse correlation of the ADC(min) and SUV(max) (r=-0.46; p=0.032). Testing the correlation of the ADC(min) and SUV(max) for each histological subtype separately revealed that the inverse correlation was good for both adenocarcinomas (r=-0.47; p=0.03) and squamouscell carcinomas (r=-0.71; p=0.002), respectively. No significant correlation was found for the comparison of ADC(min) and SUV(mean) (r=-0.29; p=0.27), ADC(mean) vs. SUV(mean) (r=-0.28; p=0.31) or ADC(mean) vs. SUV(max) (r=-0.33; p=0.23). The κ-value of 0.88 indicated a good agreement between both observers. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study is the first to verify the relation between the SUV and the ADC in NSCLC. The significant inverse correlation of these two quantitative imaging approaches points out the association of metabolic activity and tumor cellularity. Therefore, DWI with ADC measurement might represent a new prognostic marker in NSCLC.
INTRODUCTION: To investigate the potential correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient assessed by diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) and glucose metabolism determined by the standardized uptake value (SUV) at 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 18F-FDG PET/CT and DWI (TR/TE, 2000/66 ms; b-values, 0 and 500 s/mm(2)) were performed in 41 consecutive patients with histologically verified NSCLC. Analysing the PET-CT data calculation of the mean (SUV(mean)) and maximum (SUV(max)) SUV was performed. By placing a region-of-interest (ROI) encovering the entire tumor mean (ADC(mean)) and minimum ADC (ADC(min)) were determined by two independent radiologists. Results of 18F-FDG PET-CT and DWI were compared on a per-patient basis. For statistical analysis Pearson's correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman and regression analysis were assessed. RESULTS: Data analysis revealed a significant inverse correlation of the ADC(min) and SUV(max) (r=-0.46; p=0.032). Testing the correlation of the ADC(min) and SUV(max) for each histological subtype separately revealed that the inverse correlation was good for both adenocarcinomas (r=-0.47; p=0.03) and squamouscell carcinomas (r=-0.71; p=0.002), respectively. No significant correlation was found for the comparison of ADC(min) and SUV(mean) (r=-0.29; p=0.27), ADC(mean) vs. SUV(mean) (r=-0.28; p=0.31) or ADC(mean) vs. SUV(max) (r=-0.33; p=0.23). The κ-value of 0.88 indicated a good agreement between both observers. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study is the first to verify the relation between the SUV and the ADC in NSCLC. The significant inverse correlation of these two quantitative imaging approaches points out the association of metabolic activity and tumor cellularity. Therefore, DWI with ADC measurement might represent a new prognostic marker in NSCLC.
Authors: Benedikt Schaarschmidt; Christian Buchbender; Benedikt Gomez; Christian Rubbert; Florian Hild; Jens Köhler; Johannes Grueneisen; Henning Reis; Verena Ruhlmann; Axel Wetter; Harald H Quick; Gerald Antoch; Philipp Heusch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Bruno Hochhegger; Matheus Zanon; Stephan Altmayer; Gabriel S Pacini; Fernanda Balbinot; Martina Z Francisco; Ruhana Dalla Costa; Guilherme Watte; Marcel Koenigkam Santos; Marcelo C Barros; Diana Penha; Klaus Irion; Edson Marchiori Journal: Lung Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: Laura Heacock; Joseph Weissbrot; Roy Raad; Naomi Campbell; Kent P Friedman; Fabio Ponzo; Hersh Chandarana Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Arthur Varoquaux; Olivier Rager; Karl-Olof Lovblad; Karen Masterson; Pavel Dulguerov; Osman Ratib; Christoph D Becker; Minerva Becker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Stephan Metz; Carl Ganter; Sylvie Lorenzen; Sandra van Marwick; Konstantin Holzapfel; Ken Herrmann; Ernst J Rummeny; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla; Ambros J Beer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 3.240