UNLABELLED: PET with the glucose analog (18)F-FDG is increasingly used to monitor tumor response to therapy. To use quantitative measurements of tumor (18)F-FDG uptake for assessment of tumor response, the repeatability of this quantitative metabolic imaging method needs to be established. Therefore, we determined the repeatability of different standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements using the available data. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies addressing (18)F-FDG repeatability in malignant tumors. The level of agreement between test and retest values of 2 PET uptake measures, maximum SUV (SUV(max)) and mean SUV (SUV(mean)), was assessed with the coefficient of repeatability using generalized linear mixed-effects models. In addition, the influence of tumor volume on repeatability was assessed. Principal component transformation was used to compare the reproducibility of the 2 different uptake measures. RESULTS: Five cohorts were identified for this metaanalysis. For SUV(max) and SUV(mean), datasets of 86 and 102 patients, respectively, were available. Percentage repeatability is a function of the level of uptake. SUV(mean) had the best repeatability characteristics; for serial PET scans, a threshold of a combination of 20% as well as 1.2 SUV(mean) units was most appropriate. After adjusting for uptake rate, tumor volume had minimal influence on repeatability. CONCLUSION: SUV(mean) had better repeatability performance than SUV(max). Both measures showed poor repeatability for lesions with low (18)F-FDG uptake. We recommend the evaluation of biologic effects in PET by reporting a combination of minimal relative and absolute changes to account for test-retest variability.
UNLABELLED: PET with the glucose analog (18)F-FDG is increasingly used to monitor tumor response to therapy. To use quantitative measurements of tumor (18)F-FDG uptake for assessment of tumor response, the repeatability of this quantitative metabolic imaging method needs to be established. Therefore, we determined the repeatability of different standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements using the available data. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies addressing (18)F-FDG repeatability in malignant tumors. The level of agreement between test and retest values of 2 PET uptake measures, maximum SUV (SUV(max)) and mean SUV (SUV(mean)), was assessed with the coefficient of repeatability using generalized linear mixed-effects models. In addition, the influence of tumor volume on repeatability was assessed. Principal component transformation was used to compare the reproducibility of the 2 different uptake measures. RESULTS: Five cohorts were identified for this metaanalysis. For SUV(max) and SUV(mean), datasets of 86 and 102 patients, respectively, were available. Percentage repeatability is a function of the level of uptake. SUV(mean) had the best repeatability characteristics; for serial PET scans, a threshold of a combination of 20% as well as 1.2 SUV(mean) units was most appropriate. After adjusting for uptake rate, tumor volume had minimal influence on repeatability. CONCLUSION: SUV(mean) had better repeatability performance than SUV(max). Both measures showed poor repeatability for lesions with low (18)F-FDG uptake. We recommend the evaluation of biologic effects in PET by reporting a combination of minimal relative and absolute changes to account for test-retest variability.
Authors: Tarik Z Belhocine; Francis G Blankenberg; Marina S Kartachova; Larry W Stitt; Jean-Luc Vanderheyden; Frank J P Hoebers; Christophe Van de Wiele Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-08-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Wolfgang A Weber; Constantine A Gatsonis; P David Mozley; Lucy G Hanna; Anthony F Shields; Denise R Aberle; Ramaswamy Govindan; Drew A Torigian; Joel S Karp; Jian Q Michael Yu; Rathan M Subramaniam; Robert A Halvorsen; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christian Philipp Reinert; Martin Ulrich Schuhmann; Benjamin Bender; Isabel Gugel; Christian la Fougère; Jürgen Schäfer; Sergios Gatidis Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-12-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Xin Li; Steven P Rowe; Jeffrey P Leal; Michael A Gorin; Mohamad E Allaf; Ashley E Ross; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin A Lodge; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kenneth E Pengel; Bas B Koolen; Claudette E Loo; Wouter V Vogel; Jelle Wesseling; Esther H Lips; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Marie Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ralph T H Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Wouter J C van Elmpt; Chintan Parmar; Otto S Hoekstra; Corneline J Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; André L A J Dekker; Robert J Gillies; Hugo J W L Aerts; Philippe Lambin Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Yusuf Menda; Laura L Boles Ponto; Michael K Schultz; Gideon K D Zamba; G Leonard Watkins; David L Bushnell; Mark T Madsen; John J Sunderland; Michael M Graham; Thomas M O'Dorisio; M Sue O'Dorisio Journal: Pancreas Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: P Wangaryattawanich; B F Branstetter; J D Ly; U Duvvuri; D E Heron; T J Rath Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 3.825