INTRODUCTION: There is growing interest in using positron emission tomography (PET) standardized uptake values (SUVs) to assess tumor response to therapy. However, many error sources compromise the ability to detect SUV changes. We explore relationships between these errors and overall SUV variability. METHODS: We used simulations in a virtual clinical trial framework to study impacts of error sources from scanning and analysis effects on assessment of SUV changes. We varied tumor diameter, scan duration, pretherapy SUV, magnitude of change in SUV, image reconstruction filter, and SUV metric. Poisson noise was added to the raw data before image reconstruction. Variance from global sources of error, e.g., scanner calibration, was incorporated. Two thousand independent noisy sinograms per scenario were generated and reconstructed. We used SUVs to create receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to quantify ability to assess response. Integrating area under the ROC curve summarized ability to detect SUV changes. RESULTS: Scan duration and image reconstruction method had relatively little impact on ability to measure response. SUVMAX is nearly as effective as SUVMEAN, especially with increased image smoothing and despite size-matched region of interest placement. For an effective variability of 15%, we found the Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria for measuring response (±30%) similar to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria (±25%). CONCLUSIONS: For typical PET variance levels, tumor response must be 30% to 40% to be reliably determined using SUVs. PET scan duration and image reconstruction method had relatively little effect.
INTRODUCTION: There is growing interest in using positron emission tomography (PET) standardized uptake values (SUVs) to assess tumor response to therapy. However, many error sources compromise the ability to detect SUV changes. We explore relationships between these errors and overall SUV variability. METHODS: We used simulations in a virtual clinical trial framework to study impacts of error sources from scanning and analysis effects on assessment of SUV changes. We varied tumor diameter, scan duration, pretherapy SUV, magnitude of change in SUV, image reconstruction filter, and SUV metric. Poisson noise was added to the raw data before image reconstruction. Variance from global sources of error, e.g., scanner calibration, was incorporated. Two thousand independent noisy sinograms per scenario were generated and reconstructed. We used SUVs to create receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to quantify ability to assess response. Integrating area under the ROC curve summarized ability to detect SUV changes. RESULTS: Scan duration and image reconstruction method had relatively little impact on ability to measure response. SUVMAX is nearly as effective as SUVMEAN, especially with increased image smoothing and despite size-matched region of interest placement. For an effective variability of 15%, we found the Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria for measuring response (±30%) similar to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria (±25%). CONCLUSIONS: For typical PET variance levels, tumor response must be 30% to 40% to be reliably determined using SUVs. PET scan duration and image reconstruction method had relatively little effect.
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: Ronald Boellaard; Wim J G Oyen; Corneline J Hoekstra; Otto S Hoekstra; Eric P Visser; Antoon T Willemsen; Bertjan Arends; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Josee Zijlstra; Anne M Paans; Emile F I Comans; Jan Pruim Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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: 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: Robert K Doot; Lisa K Dunnwald; Erin K Schubert; Mark Muzi; Lanell M Peterson; Paul E Kinahan; Brenda F Kurland; David A Mankoff Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kristen A Wangerin; Mark Muzi; Lanell M Peterson; Hannah M Linden; Alena Novakova; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Abhinav K Jha; Esther Mena; Brian Caffo; Saeed Ashrafinia; Arman Rahmim; Eric Frey; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-03-03
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
Authors: Ehsan Abadi; William P Segars; Benjamin M W Tsui; Paul E Kinahan; Nick Bottenus; Alejandro F Frangi; Andrew Maidment; Joseph Lo; Ehsan Samei Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2020-04-11