Abdel K Tahari1, David Chien2, Javad R Azadi2, Richard L Wahl2. 1. Nuclear Medicine Division, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and Department of Medical Imaging, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia abdelkader.tahari@kfsh.med.sa. 2. Nuclear Medicine Division, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Standardized uptake value (SUV) normalized by lean body mass ([LBM] SUL) is becoming a popular metric for quantitative assessment of clinical PET. Sex-specific quantitative effects of different LBM formulations on liver SUV have not been well studied. METHODS: (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans from 1,033 consecutive adult (501 women, 532 men) studies were reviewed. Liver SUV was measured with a 3-cm-diameter spheric region of interest in the right hepatic lobe and corrected for LBM using the sex-specific James and Janmahasatian formulations. RESULTS: Body weight was 71.0 ± 20.7 kg (range, 18.0-175.0 kg) and 82.9 ± 18.6 kg (range, 23.0-159.0 kg) for women and men, respectively. SUV, based on body weight, has a significantly positive correlation with weight for both women (r = 0.58, P < 0.0001) and men (r = 0.54, P < 0.0001). This correlation is reduced in men (r = 0.11, P = 0.01) and becomes negative for women (r = -0.35, P = 0.0001) with the James formulation of SUL. This negative correlation was eliminated when the very obese women (body mass index ≥ 35) were excluded from the analysis (r = 0.13, P = 0.8). The Janmahasatian formulation annuls the correlation between SUL and weight for women (r = 0.04, P = 0.4) and decreases it for men (r = 0.13, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Hepatic correction with the more common James formulation for body lean mass breaks down and shows low SUL values in very obese patients. The adoption of the Janmahasatian formula for estimation of LBM in modern PET scanners and display workstations is recommended, in view of the increasing frequency of obesity.
UNLABELLED: Standardized uptake value (SUV) normalized by lean body mass ([LBM] SUL) is becoming a popular metric for quantitative assessment of clinical PET. Sex-specific quantitative effects of different LBM formulations on liver SUV have not been well studied. METHODS: (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans from 1,033 consecutive adult (501 women, 532 men) studies were reviewed. Liver SUV was measured with a 3-cm-diameter spheric region of interest in the right hepatic lobe and corrected for LBM using the sex-specific James and Janmahasatian formulations. RESULTS: Body weight was 71.0 ± 20.7 kg (range, 18.0-175.0 kg) and 82.9 ± 18.6 kg (range, 23.0-159.0 kg) for women and men, respectively. SUV, based on body weight, has a significantly positive correlation with weight for both women (r = 0.58, P < 0.0001) and men (r = 0.54, P < 0.0001). This correlation is reduced in men (r = 0.11, P = 0.01) and becomes negative for women (r = -0.35, P = 0.0001) with the James formulation of SUL. This negative correlation was eliminated when the very obesewomen (body mass index ≥ 35) were excluded from the analysis (r = 0.13, P = 0.8). The Janmahasatian formulation annuls the correlation between SUL and weight for women (r = 0.04, P = 0.4) and decreases it for men (r = 0.13, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Hepatic correction with the more common James formulation for body lean mass breaks down and shows low SUL values in very obesepatients. The adoption of the Janmahasatian formula for estimation of LBM in modern PET scanners and display workstations is recommended, in view of the increasing frequency of obesity.
Authors: Luca La Colla; Andrea Albertin; Giorgio La Colla; Andrea Porta; Giorgio Aldegheri; Domenico Di Candia; Fausto Gigli Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2010 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: James W Fletcher; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Heloisa P Soares; Barry A Siegel; Val J Lowe; Gary H Lyman; R Edward Coleman; Richard Wahl; John Christopher Paschold; Norbert Avril; Lawrence H Einhorn; W Warren Suh; David Samson; Dominique Delbeke; Mark Gorman; Anthony F Shields Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: P Som; H L Atkins; D Bandoypadhyay; J S Fowler; R R MacGregor; K Matsui; Z H Oster; D F Sacker; C Y Shiue; H Turner; C N Wan; A P Wolf; S V Zabinski Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1980-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wolfgang A Weber; Constantine A Gatsonis; P David Mozley; Lucy G Hanna; Anthony F Shields; Denise R Aberle; Ramaswamy Govindan; Drew A Torigian; Joel S Karp; Jian Q Michael Yu; Rathan M Subramaniam; Robert A Halvorsen; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kong Y Chen; Aaron M Cypess; Maren R Laughlin; Carol R Haft; Houchun Harry Hu; Miriam A Bredella; Sven Enerbäck; Paul E Kinahan; Wouter van Marken Lichtenbelt; Frank I Lin; John J Sunderland; Kirsi A Virtanen; Richard L Wahl Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: Sasikarn Chamchod; Clifton D Fuller; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Aaron Grossberg; Jay A Messer; Jolien Heukelom; G Brandon Gunn; Micheal E Kantor; Hillary Eichelberger; Adam S Garden; David I Rosenthal Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 5.337