Piotr Obara1, Haiping Liu, Kristen Wroblewski, Chen-Peng Zhang, Peng Hou, Yulei Jiang, Ping Chen, Yonglin Pu. 1. Departments of aRadiology bPublic Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA cPET/CT Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China dDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Metabolic tumor burden (MTB) measurements including metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis have been shown to have prognostic value in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The calculation of MTB typically utilizes software to semiautomatically draw volumes of interest around the tumor, which are subsequently manually adjusted by the radiologist to include the entire tumor. The manual adjustment step can be time-consuming and observer-dependent. We compared the agreement of MTB values obtained using the semiautomatic method with and without manual adjustment in NSCLC patients. METHODS: This IRB-approved prospective study included 134 patients with histologically proven NSCLC who underwent fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography. The MTB of the primary tumor was measured with a semiautomatic gradient-based method without manual adjustment (the semiautomatic gradient method) and with manual adjustment (the manually adjusted semiautomatic gradient method) by two radiologists using the MIM PETedge tool. The paired t-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were calculated to evaluate the agreement between MTB measures obtained with these two methods, as well as agreement between the two radiologists for each method. RESULTS: Maximum standardized uptake value was identical between the two methods. No statistically significant difference was present for peak standardized uptake value, metabolic tumor volume, and total lesion glycolysis values between the two methods (P=0.23, 0.45, and 0.37, respectively). Excellent agreement between the two methods was found in terms of CCC (CCC>0.98 for all measures). Interobserver reliability was excellent for all measures (CCC>0.90). CONCLUSION: The semiautomatic gradient-based tumor-segmentation method can be used without the additional manual adjustment step for MTB quantification of primary NSCLC tumors.
PURPOSE:Metabolic tumor burden (MTB) measurements including metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis have been shown to have prognostic value in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The calculation of MTB typically utilizes software to semiautomatically draw volumes of interest around the tumor, which are subsequently manually adjusted by the radiologist to include the entire tumor. The manual adjustment step can be time-consuming and observer-dependent. We compared the agreement of MTB values obtained using the semiautomatic method with and without manual adjustment in NSCLCpatients. METHODS: This IRB-approved prospective study included 134 patients with histologically proven NSCLC who underwent fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography. The MTB of the primary tumor was measured with a semiautomatic gradient-based method without manual adjustment (the semiautomatic gradient method) and with manual adjustment (the manually adjusted semiautomatic gradient method) by two radiologists using the MIM PETedge tool. The paired t-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were calculated to evaluate the agreement between MTB measures obtained with these two methods, as well as agreement between the two radiologists for each method. RESULTS: Maximum standardized uptake value was identical between the two methods. No statistically significant difference was present for peak standardized uptake value, metabolic tumor volume, and total lesion glycolysis values between the two methods (P=0.23, 0.45, and 0.37, respectively). Excellent agreement between the two methods was found in terms of CCC (CCC>0.98 for all measures). Interobserver reliability was excellent for all measures (CCC>0.90). CONCLUSION: The semiautomatic gradient-based tumor-segmentation method can be used without the additional manual adjustment step for MTB quantification of primary NSCLC tumors.
Authors: Hua Li; Wade L Thorstad; Kenneth J Biehl; Richard Laforest; Yi Su; Kooresh I Shoghi; Eric D Donnelly; Daniel A Low; Wei Lu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Kailiang Wu; Yee C Ung; Jennifer Hornby; Marc Freeman; David Hwang; Ming S Tsao; Max Dahele; Gail Darling; Donna E Maziak; Romeo Tirona; Kathy Mah; C Shun Wong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 7.038
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: F Hofheinz; C Pötzsch; L Oehme; B Beuthien-Baumann; J Steinbach; J Kotzerke; J van den Hoff Journal: Nuklearmedizin Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 1.379
Authors: Quinten C Black; Inga S Grills; Larry L Kestin; Ching-Yee O Wong; John W Wong; Alvaro A Martinez; Di Yan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Zachary D Horne; David A Clump; John A Vargo; Samir Shah; Sushil Beriwal; Steven A Burton; Annette E Quinn; Matthew J Schuchert; Rodney J Landreneau; Neil A Christie; James D Luketich; Dwight E Heron Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Yonglin Pu; James X Zhang; Haiyan Liu; Daniel Appelbaum; Jianfeng Meng; Bill C Penney Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Xuee Zhu; Chuanhong Liao; Bill C Penney; Feng Li; Mark K Ferguson; Cassie A Simon; Tianming Wu; Haiyan Liu; Yonglin Pu Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 1.690