Irene A Burger1, Hebert Alberto Vargas2, Aditya Apte3, Bradley J Beattie3, John L Humm3, Mithat Gonen4, Steven M Larson2, C Ross Schmidtlein3. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Ramistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: Irene.burger@usz.ch. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065. 3. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065. 4. Department of Epidemiology-Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The increasing use of molecular imaging probes as biomarkers in oncology emphasizes the need for robust and stable methods for quantifying tracer uptake in PET imaging. The primary motivation for this research was to find an accurate method to quantify the total tumor uptake. Therefore we developed a histogram-based method to calculate the background subtracted lesion (BSL) activity and validated BSL by comparing the quantitative consistency with the total lesion glycolysis (TLG) in phantom and patient studies. METHODS: A thorax phantom and a PET-ACR quality assurance phantom were scanned with increasing FDG concentrations. Volumes of interest (VOIs) were placed over each chamber. TLG was calculated with a fixed threshold at SUV 2.5 (TLG2.5) and a relative threshold at 42% of SUVmax (TLG42%). The histogram for each VOI was built and BSL was calculated. Comparison with the total injected FDG activity (TIA) was performed using concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) and the slope (a). Fifty consecutive patients with FDG-avid lung tumors were selected under an IRB waiver. TLG42%, TLG2.5 and BSL were compared to the reference standard calculating CCC and the slope. RESULTS: In both phantoms, the CCC for lesions with a TIA ≤50ml*SUV between TIA and BSL was higher and the slope closer to 1 (CCC=0.933, a=1.189), than for TLG42% (CCC=0.350, a=0.731) or TLG2.5 (CCC=0.761, a=0.727). In 50 lung lesions BSL had a slope closer to 1 compared to the reference activity than TLG42% (a=1.084 vs 0.618 - for high activity lesions) and also closer to 1 than TLG2.5 (a=1.117 vs 0.548 - for low activity lesions). CONCLUSION: The histogram based BSL correlated better with TIA in both phantom studies than TLG2.5 or TLG42%. Also in lung tumors, the BSL activity is overall more accurate in quantifying the lesion activity compared to the two most commonly applied TLG quantification methods.
INTRODUCTION: The increasing use of molecular imaging probes as biomarkers in oncology emphasizes the need for robust and stable methods for quantifying tracer uptake in PET imaging. The primary motivation for this research was to find an accurate method to quantify the total tumor uptake. Therefore we developed a histogram-based method to calculate the background subtracted lesion (BSL) activity and validated BSL by comparing the quantitative consistency with the total lesion glycolysis (TLG) in phantom and patient studies. METHODS: A thorax phantom and a PET-ACR quality assurance phantom were scanned with increasing FDG concentrations. Volumes of interest (VOIs) were placed over each chamber. TLG was calculated with a fixed threshold at SUV 2.5 (TLG2.5) and a relative threshold at 42% of SUVmax (TLG42%). The histogram for each VOI was built and BSL was calculated. Comparison with the total injected FDG activity (TIA) was performed using concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) and the slope (a). Fifty consecutive patients with FDG-avid lung tumors were selected under an IRB waiver. TLG42%, TLG2.5 and BSL were compared to the reference standard calculating CCC and the slope. RESULTS: In both phantoms, the CCC for lesions with a TIA ≤50ml*SUV between TIA and BSL was higher and the slope closer to 1 (CCC=0.933, a=1.189), than for TLG42% (CCC=0.350, a=0.731) or TLG2.5 (CCC=0.761, a=0.727). In 50 lung lesions BSL had a slope closer to 1 compared to the reference activity than TLG42% (a=1.084 vs 0.618 - for high activity lesions) and also closer to 1 than TLG2.5 (a=1.117 vs 0.548 - for low activity lesions). CONCLUSION: The histogram based BSL correlated better with TIA in both phantom studies than TLG2.5 or TLG42%. Also in lung tumors, the BSL activity is overall more accurate in quantifying the lesion activity compared to the two most commonly applied TLG quantification methods.
Authors: Shengri Liao; Bill C Penney; Kristen Wroblewski; Hao Zhang; Cassie A Simon; Rony Kampalath; Ming-Chi Shih; Naoko Shimada; Sheng Chen; Ravi Salgia; Daniel E Appelbaum; Kenji Suzuki; Chin-Tu Chen; Yonglin Pu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Josef J Fox; Estelle Autran-Blanc; Michael J Morris; Somali Gavane; Sadek Nehmeh; André Van Nuffel; Mithat Gönen; Heiko Schöder; John L Humm; Howard I Scher; Steven M Larson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Steven M. Larson; Yusuf Erdi; Timothy Akhurst; Madhu Mazumdar; Homer A. Macapinlac; Ronald D. Finn; Cecille Casilla; Melissa Fazzari; Neil Srivastava; Henry W.D. Yeung; John L. Humm; Jose Guillem; Robert Downey; Martin Karpeh; Alfred E. Cohen; Robert Ginsberg Journal: Clin Positron Imaging Date: 1999-05
Authors: Kenneth J Biehl; Feng-Ming Kong; Farrokh Dehdashti; Jian-Yue Jin; Sasa Mutic; Issam El Naqa; Barry A Siegel; Jeffrey D Bradley Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: S A Nehmeh; H El-Zeftawy; C Greco; J Schwartz; Y E Erdi; A Kirov; C R Schmidtlein; A B Gyau; S M Larson; J L Humm Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Seung Hyup Hyun; Joon Young Choi; Young Mog Shim; Kwhanmien Kim; Su Jin Lee; Young Seok Cho; Ji Young Lee; Kyung-Han Lee; Byung-Tae Kim Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mathieu Hatt; John A Lee; Charles R Schmidtlein; Issam El Naqa; Curtis Caldwell; Elisabetta De Bernardi; Wei Lu; Shiva Das; Xavier Geets; Vincent Gregoire; Robert Jeraj; Michael P MacManus; Osama R Mawlawi; Ursula Nestle; Andrei B Pugachev; Heiko Schöder; Tony Shepherd; Emiliano Spezi; Dimitris Visvikis; Habib Zaidi; Assen S Kirov Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Guang Li; C Ross Schmidtlein; Irene A Burger; Carole A Ridge; Stephen B Solomon; John L Humm Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: H A Vargas; I A Burger; D A Goldman; M Miccò; R E Sosa; W Weber; D S Chi; H Hricak; E Sala Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Arman Rahmim; C Ross Schmidtlein; Andrew Jackson; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Charles Marcus; Saeed Ashrafinia; Madjid Soltani; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Irene A Burger; Ruben Casanova; Seraina Steiger; Lars Husmann; Paul Stolzmann; Martin W Huellner; Alessandra Curioni; Sven Hillinger; C Ross Schmidtlein; Alex Soltermann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mubarik A Arshad; Samuel Gitau; Henry Tam; Won-Ho E Park; Neva H Patel; Andrea Rockall; Eric O Aboagye; Nishat Bharwani; Tara D Barwick Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 9.236