OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to establish the magnitude change and interreader reliability of the liver standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass (SULmean) in dual-time-point imaging at 1 and 2 hours and 1 and 4 hours. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Early and delayed FDG PET/CT scans were included for 28 patients (13 men and 15 women) who had normal liver by CT or ultrasound. The average uptake time between the early and delayed scans were 55 minutes (range, 44-69 minutes) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients (n = 19) and 184 minutes (range, 140-197 minutes) for neurofibromatosis patients (n = 9). A 30-mm-diameter spherical volume of interest was placed within the right lobe of the liver above, below, and at the level of the main portal vein by 2 independent readers. Correlation coefficients, analysis of variance, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis were performed. RESULTS: The mean liver SULmean was between 1.39 and 1.42 and between 1.28 and 1.3 in early and delayed images, respectively (P = 0.001). There is time-dependent reduction in the mean liver SULmean at 2-hour (7%-8%) and 4-hour uptake time (15%-21%) compared with 1-hour uptake time. The correlation coefficient between delayed uptake time and liver SULmean reduction is 0.39 to 0.41 at the upper aspect of the liver. The intraclass correlation coefficient for 2 readers varied between 0.997 and 0.998 and between 0.995 and 0.999 in early and delayed images, respectively (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is time-dependent reduction of mean liver SULmean, about 7% to 8% within the clinically relevant FDG uptake time, in the same patient with excellent interreader agreement in early and delayed images within the right lobe of the liver. Therefore, liver SULmean could represent a useful reference parameter in quantitative analysis of dual-phase FDG PET/CT in malignancy or atypical infection/inflammatory disease. Furthermore, it may be suitable as a normalization factor in currently available formulae quantifying therapy response on PET imaging.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to establish the magnitude change and interreader reliability of the liver standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass (SULmean) in dual-time-point imaging at 1 and 2 hours and 1 and 4 hours. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Early and delayed FDG PET/CT scans were included for 28 patients (13 men and 15 women) who had normal liver by CT or ultrasound. The average uptake time between the early and delayed scans were 55 minutes (range, 44-69 minutes) for pancreatic adenocarcinomapatients (n = 19) and 184 minutes (range, 140-197 minutes) for neurofibromatosispatients (n = 9). A 30-mm-diameter spherical volume of interest was placed within the right lobe of the liver above, below, and at the level of the main portal vein by 2 independent readers. Correlation coefficients, analysis of variance, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis were performed. RESULTS: The mean liver SULmean was between 1.39 and 1.42 and between 1.28 and 1.3 in early and delayed images, respectively (P = 0.001). There is time-dependent reduction in the mean liver SULmean at 2-hour (7%-8%) and 4-hour uptake time (15%-21%) compared with 1-hour uptake time. The correlation coefficient between delayed uptake time and liver SULmean reduction is 0.39 to 0.41 at the upper aspect of the liver. The intraclass correlation coefficient for 2 readers varied between 0.997 and 0.998 and between 0.995 and 0.999 in early and delayed images, respectively (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is time-dependent reduction of mean liver SULmean, about 7% to 8% within the clinically relevant FDG uptake time, in the same patient with excellent interreader agreement in early and delayed images within the right lobe of the liver. Therefore, liver SULmean could represent a useful reference parameter in quantitative analysis of dual-phase FDG PET/CT in malignancy or atypical infection/inflammatory disease. Furthermore, it may be suitable as a normalization factor in currently available formulae quantifying therapy response on PET imaging.
Authors: Elizabeth H Dibble; Ana C Lara Alvarez; Minh-Tam Truong; Gustavo Mercier; Earl F Cook; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-04-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jessica M Davison; Al Ozonoff; Heather M Imsande; Gregory A Grillone; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bennett B Chin; Edward D Green; Timothy G Turkington; Thomas C Hawk; R Edward Coleman Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Dominik Berzaczy; Marius E Mayerhoefer; Amedeo A Azizi; Alexander R Haug; Daniela Senn; Dietrich Beitzke; Michael Weber; Tatjana Traub-Weidinger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: N Patel; Kieran G Foley; A G Powell; J R Wheat; D Chan; P Fielding; S A Roberts; W G Lewis Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Marius E Mayerhoefer; Chiara Giraudo; Daniela Senn; Markus Hartenbach; Michael Weber; Ivo Rausch; Barbara Kiesewetter; Christian J Herold; Marcus Hacker; Matthias Pones; Ingrid Simonitsch-Klupp; Leonhard Müllauer; Werner Dolak; Julius Lukas; Markus Raderer Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Sophie E Vollenbrock; Marlies E Nowee; Francine E M Voncken; Alexis N T J Kotte; Lucas Goense; Peter S N van Rossum; Astrid L H M W van Lier; Stijn W Heijmink; Annemarieke Bartels-Rutten; Frank J Wessels; Berthe M P Aleman; Luc Dewit; Linda G W Kerkmeijer; Edwin P M Jansen; Martijn Intven; Irene M Lips; Gert J Meijer; Jasper Nijkamp Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-04-24