PURPOSE: Measurement variance affects the clinical effectiveness of PET-based measurement as a semiquantitative imaging biomarker for cancer response in individual patients and for planning clinical trials. In this study, we measured test-retest reproducibility of SUV measurements under clinical practice conditions and recorded recognized deviations from protocol compliance. METHODS: Instrument performance calibration, display, and analyses conformed to manufacture recommendations. Baseline clinical (18)F-FDG PET/CT examinations were performed and then repeated at 1 to 7 days. Intended scan initiation uptake period was to repeat the examinations at the same time for each study after injection of 12 mCi FDG tracer. Avidity of uptake was measured in 62 tumors in 21 patients as SUV for maximum voxel (SUV(max)) and for a mean of sampled tumor voxels (SUV(mean)). RESULTS: The range of SUV(max) and SUV(mean) was 1.07 to 21.47 and 0.91 to 14.69, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficient between log of SUV(max) and log of SUV(mean) was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-0.95) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95), respectively.Correlation analysis failed to show an effect on uptake period variation on SUV measurements between the 2 examinations, suggesting additional sources of noise.The threshold criteria for relative difference from baseline for the 95% CI were ± 49% or ± 44% for SUV(max) or SUV(mean), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Variance of SUV for FDG-PET/CT in current clinical practice in a single institution was greater than expected when compared with benchmarks reported under stringent efficacy study settings. Under comparable clinical practice conditions, interpretation of changes in tumor avidity in individuals and assumptions in planning clinical trials may be affected.
PURPOSE: Measurement variance affects the clinical effectiveness of PET-based measurement as a semiquantitative imaging biomarker for cancer response in individual patients and for planning clinical trials. In this study, we measured test-retest reproducibility of SUV measurements under clinical practice conditions and recorded recognized deviations from protocol compliance. METHODS: Instrument performance calibration, display, and analyses conformed to manufacture recommendations. Baseline clinical (18)F-FDG PET/CT examinations were performed and then repeated at 1 to 7 days. Intended scan initiation uptake period was to repeat the examinations at the same time for each study after injection of 12 mCi FDG tracer. Avidity of uptake was measured in 62 tumors in 21 patients as SUV for maximum voxel (SUV(max)) and for a mean of sampled tumor voxels (SUV(mean)). RESULTS: The range of SUV(max) and SUV(mean) was 1.07 to 21.47 and 0.91 to 14.69, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficient between log of SUV(max) and log of SUV(mean) was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-0.95) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95), respectively.Correlation analysis failed to show an effect on uptake period variation on SUV measurements between the 2 examinations, suggesting additional sources of noise.The threshold criteria for relative difference from baseline for the 95% CI were ± 49% or ± 44% for SUV(max) or SUV(mean), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Variance of SUV for FDG-PET/CT in current clinical practice in a single institution was greater than expected when compared with benchmarks reported under stringent efficacy study settings. Under comparable clinical practice conditions, interpretation of changes in tumor avidity in individuals and assumptions in planning clinical trials may be affected.
Authors: Frederic H Fahey; Paul E Kinahan; Robert K Doot; Mehmet Kocak; Harold Thurston; Tina Young Poussaint Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
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: Jooae Choe; Sang Min Lee; Kyung-Hyun Do; Jung Bok Lee; Sang Min Lee; June-Goo Lee; Joon Beom Seo Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J H Rasmussen; B M Fischer; M C Aznar; A E Hansen; I R Vogelius; J Löfgren; F L Andersen; A Loft; A Kjaer; L Højgaard; L Specht Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Karine Sahakyan; Xin Li; Martin A Lodge; Rudolf A Werner; Ralph A Bundschuh; Lena Bundschuh; Harshad R Kulkarni; Christiane Schuchardt; Richard P Baum; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Pomper; Ashley E Ross; Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Darrin Byrd; Rebecca Christopfel; Grae Arabasz; Ciprian Catana; Joel Karp; Martin A Lodge; Charles Laymon; Eduardo G Moros; Mikalai Budzevich; Sadek Nehmeh; Joshua Scheuermann; John Sunderland; Jun Zhang; Paul Kinahan Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-04
Authors: Jasmine A Oliver; Mikalai Budzevich; Dylan Hunt; Eduardo G Moros; Kujtim Latifi; Thomas J Dilling; Vladimir Feygelman; Geoffrey Zhang Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-08-08