Literature DB >> 23512357

Reference range for intrapatient variability in blood-pool and liver SUV for 18F-FDG PET.

Raef R Boktor1, Gregory Walker, Roderick Stacey, Samuel Gledhill, Alexander G Pitman.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: (18)F-FDG PET qualitative tumor response assessment or tumor-to-background ratios compare targets against blood-pool or liver activity; standardized uptake value (SUV) semiquantitation has artifacts and is validated by a stable normal-tissue baseline. The aim of this study was to document the normal intrapatient range of scan-to-scan variation in blood-pool SUV and liver SUV and to identify factors that may adversely affect it (increase its spread).
METHODS: Between July 2009 and June 2010, 132 oncology patients had 2 PET/CT scans. Patient preparation, acquisition, and reconstruction protocols were held stable, uniform, and reproducible. Mean SUV (body weight) values were obtained from 2-dimensional regions of interest in the aortic arch blood pool and in the right lobe of the liver.
RESULTS: Of the 132 patients, 65 had lymphoma. Their mean age was 62.5 y. The group's mean serum glucose level was 6.0 mmol/L at the first visit and 5.9 mmol/L at the second visit. The mean (18)F-FDG dose was 4.1 MBq/kg at the first visit and 4.0 at the second. At the first visit, the group's mean blood-pool SUV was 1.55 (SD, 0.38); at the second, 1.58 (SD, 0.37)-not statistically different. The group's mean liver SUV was 2.17 (SD, 0.44) at the first visit and 2.29 (SD, 0.44) at the second (P = 0.005). Visit-to-visit intrapatient variation in blood-pool and liver SUVs had gaussian distributions. The variation in blood-pool SUV had a mean of 0.03 and SD of 0.42. The variation in liver SUV had a mean of 0.12 and SD of 0.50. Using 95th percentiles, the reference range in our patient population for intrapatient variation was -0.8 to 0.9 for blood pool SUV and -0.9 to 1.1 for liver SUV. Subanalysis by cancer type and chemotherapy suggested that the rise in liver SUV between the 2 visits was largely due to the commencement of chemotherapy, but no factors were identified as systematically affecting intrapatient variation, and no factors were identified as increasing its spread.
CONCLUSION: In our patient cohort, the reference range for intrapatient variation in blood-pool and liver SUVs is -0.8 to 0.9 and -0.9 to 1.1, respectively.

Entities:  

Keywords:  SUV; blood pool and liver; intrapatient variability

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23512357     DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.108530

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  38 in total

1.  A comparison study of dual-energy spectral CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in primary tumors and lymph nodes of lung cancer.

Authors:  Osman Kupik; Yavuz Metin; Gülnihan Eren; Nurgul Orhan Metin; Medeni Arpa
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 2.630

2.  The Association Between Liver and Tumor [18F]FDG Uptake in Patients with Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma During Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Xingchen Wu; Abhisek Bhattarai; Pasi Korkola; Hannu Pertovaara; Hannu Eskola; Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.488

3.  Factors affecting intrapatient liver and mediastinal blood pool ¹⁸F-FDG standardized uptake value changes during ABVD chemotherapy in Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Authors:  Agostino Chiaravalloti; Roberta Danieli; Paolo Abbatiello; Barbara Di Pietro; Laura Travascio; Maria Cantonetti; Manlio Guazzaroni; Antonio Orlacchio; Giovanni Simonetti; Orazio Schillaci
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-02-22       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Effect of blood glucose level on standardized uptake value (SUV) in 18F- FDG PET-scan: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 20,807 individual SUV measurements.

Authors:  Mahsa Eskian; Abass Alavi; MirHojjat Khorasanizadeh; Benjamin L Viglianti; Hans Jacobsson; Tara D Barwick; Alipasha Meysamie; Sun K Yi; Shingo Iwano; Bohdan Bybel; Federico Caobelli; Filippo Lococo; Joaquim Gea; Antonio Sancho-Muñoz; Jukka Schildt; Ebru Tatcı; Constantin Lapa; Georgia Keramida; Michael Peters; Raef R Boktor; Joemon John; Alexander G Pitman; Tomasz Mazurek; Nima Rezaei
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Sources of variability in FDG PET imaging and the qPET value: reply to Laffon and Marthan.

Authors:  Dirk Hasenclever; Lars Kurch; Regine Kluge
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Interim FDG PET scans in lymphoma: SUV measurement error may impair qPET methodology.

Authors:  Eric Laffon; Roger Marthan
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  Effects of Fever on 18F-FDG Distribution In Vivo: a Preliminary Study.

Authors:  Yutang Yao; Junjun Cheng; Minggang Su; Xiaohong Ou
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 3.488

8.  Test-Retest Variability in Lesion SUV and Lesion SUR in 18F-FDG PET: An Analysis of Data from Two Prospective Multicenter Trials.

Authors:  Frank Hofheinz; Ivayla Apostolova; Liane Oehme; Jörg Kotzerke; Jörg van den Hoff
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2017-05-04       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 9.  Assessing the role of ¹⁸F-FDG PET and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of soft tissue musculoskeletal malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Elba C Etchebehere; Brian P Hobbs; Denái R Milton; Osama Malawi; Shreyaskumar Patel; Robert S Benjamin; Homer A Macapinlac
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-12-03       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  Standardized Uptake Values from PET/MRI in Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Organ-based Comparison With PET/CT.

Authors:  Akshat C Pujara; Roy A Raad; Fabio Ponzo; Carolyn Wassong; James S Babb; Linda Moy; Amy N Melsaether
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 2.431

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.