PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess test-retest variability of various quantitative measures to characterize tracer uptake and/or tracer uptake heterogeneity. PROCEDURES: Two baseline whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) scans were acquired in 29 subjects with colorectal carcinoma. Whole liver volumes of interest (VOI) were defined manually on CT. For each VOI, various quantitative measures were determined, e.g., skewness, kurtosis, and the area under a cumulative standardized uptake value-volume histogram (AUC). RESULTS: AUC showed a good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC): 0.97) and low test-retest variability (10%). Most other quantitative parameters showed excellent agreement between test and retest values (ICC: 0.78-0.97) and low test-retest variability (<12%), except for kurtosis. Skewness also showed a higher test-retest variability (19%), but good ICC (0.96) and it correlated well with AUC (R (2): 0.90, all others: <0.76). CONCLUSION: This high reproducibility and reliability of AUC warrant further investigation of its use for quantification of tracer uptake heterogeneity.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess test-retest variability of various quantitative measures to characterize tracer uptake and/or tracer uptake heterogeneity. PROCEDURES: Two baseline whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) scans were acquired in 29 subjects with colorectal carcinoma. Whole liver volumes of interest (VOI) were defined manually on CT. For each VOI, various quantitative measures were determined, e.g., skewness, kurtosis, and the area under a cumulative standardized uptake value-volume histogram (AUC). RESULTS: AUC showed a good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC): 0.97) and low test-retest variability (10%). Most other quantitative parameters showed excellent agreement between test and retest values (ICC: 0.78-0.97) and low test-retest variability (<12%), except for kurtosis. Skewness also showed a higher test-retest variability (19%), but good ICC (0.96) and it correlated well with AUC (R (2): 0.90, all others: <0.76). CONCLUSION: This high reproducibility and reliability of AUC warrant further investigation of its use for quantification of tracer uptake heterogeneity.
Authors: Virginie Frings; Adrianus J de Langen; Egbert F Smit; Floris H P van Velden; Otto S Hoekstra; Harm van Tinteren; Ronald Boellaard Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Linda M Velasquez; Ronald Boellaard; Georgia Kollia; Wendy Hayes; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Susan M Galbraith Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Floris H P van Velden; Patsuree Cheebsumon; Maqsood Yaqub; Egbert F Smit; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-05-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Mike J O'Doherty; Wolfgang A Weber; Felix M Mottaghy; Markus N Lonsdale; Sigrid G Stroobants; Wim J G Oyen; Joerg Kotzerke; Otto S Hoekstra; Jan Pruim; Paul K Marsden; Klaus Tatsch; Corneline J Hoekstra; Eric P Visser; Bertjan Arends; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Josee M Zijlstra; Emile F I Comans; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Anne M Paans; Antoon T Willemsen; Thomas Beyer; Andreas Bockisch; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop; Dominique Delbeke; Richard P Baum; Arturo Chiti; Bernd J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Linda Heijmen; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Johannes H W de Wilt; Dimitris Visvikis; Mathieu Hatt; Eric P Visser; Johan Bussink; Cornelis J A Punt; Wim J G Oyen; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-09-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Theo J M Ruers; Cornelis J A Punt; Jan Willem Leer; Frans H M Corstens; Wim J G Oyen Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2006-10-31 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Esther Mena; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Mehdi Taghipour; Abhinav K Jha; Esther Vicente; Jennifer Xiao; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Marie-Charlotte Desseroit; Florent Tixier; Wolfgang A Weber; Barry A Siegel; Catherine Cheze Le Rest; Dimitris Visvikis; Mathieu Hatt Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Floris H P van Velden; Ida A Nissen; Wendy Hayes; Linda M Velasquez; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Floris H P van Velden; Gerbrand M Kramer; Virginie Frings; Ida A Nissen; Emma R Mulder; Adrianus J de Langen; Otto S Hoekstra; Egbert F Smit; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Jorianne Boers; Erik F J de Vries; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Geke A P Hospers; Carolina P Schröder Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Andrea G Rockall; Norbert Avril; Raymond Lam; Robert Iannone; P David Mozley; Christine Parkinson; Donald Bergstrom; Evis Sala; Shah-Jalal Sarker; Iain A McNeish; James D Brenton Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Marco Bologna; Valentina D A Corino; Eros Montin; Antonella Messina; Giuseppina Calareso; Francesca G Greco; Silvana Sdao; Luca T Mainardi Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 4.056