Literature DB >> 25615764

Two-time-point FDG PET/CT: liver SULmean repeatability.

Abdel K Tahari1, Vasavi Paidpally, Alin Chirindel, Richard L Wahl, Rathan M Subramaniam.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of liver mean standardized uptake value normalized to lean body mass (SULmean) in the same patients at different time points within the right lobe of the liver at (18)F-FDG PET/CT, in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Two PET/CT studies performed on two different dates from each of 130 patients who had normal livers according to structural imaging were included in this reader study. The mean (± SD) length of time between the studies was 235 ± 192 days. SULmean was measured with a 30-mm diameter spherical volume of interest (VOI) placed within the right lobe of the liver (above, below, and at the level of the main portal vein) by two expert readers. ANOVA, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman analysis were performed. RESULTS. The ICC for the first and second set of studies varied between 0.487 and 0.535 for reader 1 and between 0.472 and 0.545 for reader 2. The mean percentage variation for SULmean between the two time scans for the VOIs placed above, below, and at the level of the main portal vein were 3.55% ± 23.19%, 4.65% ± 23.87%, and 4.30% ± 23.03%, respectively, for reader 1 and 4.49% ± 23.23%, 4.33% ± 23.74%, and 4.48% ± 23.01%, respectively, for reader 2. Using 95% CI, the reference range for intrapatient variations between the studies in liver SULmean was -0.5 to 0.60. CONCLUSION. There is only fair repeatability of liver SULmean measured between two time points in the same patient in a clinical setting. Scan-to-scan intrapatient variation in absolute liver SULmean was -0.5 to 0.60.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PET/CT; liver mean standardized uptake value (SUV) normalized to lean body mass (SULmean); repeatability; therapy assessment

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25615764      PMCID: PMC4870645          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.12719

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  25 in total

1.  Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value.

Authors:  S C Huang
Journal:  Nucl Med Biol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.408

2.  SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value?

Authors:  J W Keyes
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 3.  Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome.

Authors:  Wolfgang A Weber
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET.

Authors:  W A Weber; S I Ziegler; R Thödtmann; A R Hanauske; M Schwaiger
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Is liver SUV stable over time in ¹⁸F-FDG PET imaging?

Authors:  Eric Laffon; Xavier Adhoute; Henri de Clermont; Roger Marthan
Journal:  J Nucl Med Technol       Date:  2011-08-30

6.  FDG-PET/CT imaging biomarkers in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Vasavi Paidpally; Alin Chirindel; Stella Lam; Nishant Agrawal; Harry Quon; Rathan M Subramaniam
Journal:  Imaging Med       Date:  2012-12

Review 7.  From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors.

Authors:  Richard L Wahl; Heather Jacene; Yvette Kasamon; Martin A Lodge
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard; Nanda C Krak; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  Reproducibility of functional volume and activity concentration in 18F-FDG PET/CT of liver metastases in colorectal cancer.

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

10.  Reference range for intrapatient variability in blood-pool and liver SUV for 18F-FDG PET.

Authors:  Raef R Boktor; Gregory Walker; Roderick Stacey; Samuel Gledhill; Alexander G Pitman
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  8 in total

1.  Quantitation of Cancer Treatment Response by 18F-FDG PET/CT: Multicenter Assessment of Measurement Variability.

Authors:  Joo Hyun O; Heather Jacene; Brandon Luber; Hao Wang; Minh-Huy Huynh; Jeffrey P Leal; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Intrapatient repeatability of background 18F-FDG uptake on PET/CT.

Authors:  Rang Wang; Qiuping Fan; Rong Tian; Minggang Su
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-09

Review 3.  Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation.

Authors:  Julian M M Rogasch; Frank Hofheinz; Lutz van Heek; Conrad-Amadeus Voltin; Ronald Boellaard; Carsten Kobe
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-10

4.  Hepatic 18F-FDG Uptake Measurements on PET/MR: Impact of Volume of Interest Location on Repeatability.

Authors:  Liran Domachevsky; Hanna Bernstine; Meital Nidam; Dan Stein; Natalia Goldberg; Dorit Stern; Ifat Abadi-Korek; David Groshar
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 3.161

Review 5.  Impacts of time interval on 18F-FDG uptake for PET/CT in normal organs: A systematic review.

Authors:  Rang Wang; Haotian Chen; Chengzhong Fan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 1.889

6.  Test-retest repeatability and interobserver variation of healthy tissue metabolism using 18F-FDG PET/CT of the thorax among lung cancer patients.

Authors:  Afnan A Malaih; Joel T Dunn; Lotte Nygård; David G Kovacs; Flemming L Andersen; Sally F Barrington; Barbara M Fischer
Journal:  Nucl Med Commun       Date:  2022-05-01       Impact factor: 1.698

7.  How to assess intra- and inter-observer agreement with quantitative PET using variance component analysis: a proposal for standardisation.

Authors:  Oke Gerke; Mie Holm Vilstrup; Eivind Antonsen Segtnan; Ulrich Halekoh; Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 1.930

8.  Evaluation of SUV normalized by lean body mass (SUL) in 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT: a bi-centric analysis.

Authors:  Andrei Gafita; Jeremie Calais; Charlott Franz; Isabel Rauscher; Hui Wang; Andrew Roberstson; Johannes Czernin; Wolfgang A Weber; Matthias Eiber
Journal:  EJNMMI Res       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 3.138

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.