PURPOSE: To compare normalisation to blood glucose (BG) with scaling to hepatic uptake for quantification of tumour (18) F-FDG uptake using the brain as a surrogate for tumours. METHODS: Standardised uptake value (SUV) was measured over the liver, cerebellum, basal ganglia, and frontal cortex in 304 patients undergoing (18) F-FDG PET/CT. The relationship between brain FDG clearance and SUV was theoretically defined. RESULTS: Brain SUV decreased exponentially with BG, with similar constants between cerebellum, basal ganglia, and frontal cortex (0.099-0.119 mmol/l(-1)) and similar to values for tumours estimated from the literature. Liver SUV, however, correlated positively with BG. Brain-to-liver SUV ratio therefore showed an inverse correlation with BG, well-fitted with a hyperbolic function (R = 0.83), as theoretically predicted. Brain SUV normalised to BG (nSUV) displayed a nonlinear correlation with BG (R = 0.55); however, as theoretically predicted, brain nSUV/liver SUV showed almost no correlation with BG. Correction of brain SUV using BG raised to an exponential power of 0.099 mmol/l(-1) also eliminated the correlation between brain SUV and BG. CONCLUSION: Brain SUV continues to correlate with BG after normalisation to BG. Likewise, liver SUV is unsuitable as a reference for tumour FDG uptake. Brain SUV divided by liver SUV, however, shows minimal dependence on BG. KEY POINTS: • FDG standard uptake value in tumours helps clinicians assess response to treatment. • SUV is influenced by blood glucose; normalisation to blood glucose is recommended. • An alternative approach is to scale tumour SUV to liver SUV. • The brain used as a tumour surrogate shows that neither approach is valid. • Applying both approaches, however, appropriately corrects for blood glucose.
PURPOSE: To compare normalisation to blood glucose (BG) with scaling to hepatic uptake for quantification of tumour (18) F-FDG uptake using the brain as a surrogate for tumours. METHODS: Standardised uptake value (SUV) was measured over the liver, cerebellum, basal ganglia, and frontal cortex in 304 patients undergoing (18) F-FDG PET/CT. The relationship between brain FDG clearance and SUV was theoretically defined. RESULTS: Brain SUV decreased exponentially with BG, with similar constants between cerebellum, basal ganglia, and frontal cortex (0.099-0.119 mmol/l(-1)) and similar to values for tumours estimated from the literature. Liver SUV, however, correlated positively with BG. Brain-to-liver SUV ratio therefore showed an inverse correlation with BG, well-fitted with a hyperbolic function (R = 0.83), as theoretically predicted. Brain SUV normalised to BG (nSUV) displayed a nonlinear correlation with BG (R = 0.55); however, as theoretically predicted, brain nSUV/liver SUV showed almost no correlation with BG. Correction of brain SUV using BG raised to an exponential power of 0.099 mmol/l(-1) also eliminated the correlation between brain SUV and BG. CONCLUSION: Brain SUV continues to correlate with BG after normalisation to BG. Likewise, liver SUV is unsuitable as a reference for tumourFDG uptake. Brain SUV divided by liver SUV, however, shows minimal dependence on BG. KEY POINTS: • FDG standard uptake value in tumours helps clinicians assess response to treatment. • SUV is influenced by blood glucose; normalisation to blood glucose is recommended. • An alternative approach is to scale tumour SUV to liver SUV. • The brain used as a tumour surrogate shows that neither approach is valid. • Applying both approaches, however, appropriately corrects for blood glucose.
Authors: H M Zhuang; A Cortés-Blanco; M Pourdehnad; L E Adam; A J Yamamoto; R Martínez-Lázaro; J H Lee; J C Loman; M D Rossman; A Alavi Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Y Choi; R A Hawkins; S C Huang; R C Brunken; C K Hoh; C Messa; E U Nitzsche; M E Phelps; H R Schelbert Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: T Torizuka; N Tamaki; T Inokuma; Y Magata; S Sasayama; Y Yonekura; A Tanaka; Y Yamaoka; K Yamamoto; J Konishi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mariëtte C A van Kouwen; Jan B M J Jansen; Harry van Goor; Steve de Castro; Wim J G Oyen; Joost P H Drenth Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-11-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Benjamin L Viglianti; Ka Kit Wong; Stephanie M Wimer; Aishwarya Parameswaran; Bin Nan; Christy Ky; Danyelle M Townsend; Domenico Rubello; Kirk A Frey; Milton D Gross Journal: Biomed Pharmacother Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 6.529
Authors: Mahsa Eskian; Abass Alavi; MirHojjat Khorasanizadeh; Benjamin L Viglianti; Hans Jacobsson; Tara D Barwick; Alipasha Meysamie; Sun K Yi; Shingo Iwano; Bohdan Bybel; Federico Caobelli; Filippo Lococo; Joaquim Gea; Antonio Sancho-Muñoz; Jukka Schildt; Ebru Tatcı; Constantin Lapa; Georgia Keramida; Michael Peters; Raef R Boktor; Joemon John; Alexander G Pitman; Tomasz Mazurek; Nima Rezaei Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Xiaofan Xiong; Timothy J Linhardt; Weiren Liu; Brian J Smith; Wenqing Sun; Christian Bauer; John J Sunderland; Michael M Graham; John M Buatti; Reinhard R Beichel Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 4.071