Haiping Liu1, Ping Chen, Kristen Wroblewski, Peng Hou, Chen-Peng Zhang, Yulei Jiang, Yonglin Pu. 1. aPET/CT Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong bDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China Departments of cPublic Health Sciences dRadiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that the metabolic tumor volume (MTV) of primary non-small-cell lung cancer is not sensitive to differences in F-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) uptake time, and to compare this consistency of MTV measurements with that of standardized uptake value (SUV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG). METHODS: Under Institutional Review Board approval, 134 consecutive patients with histologically proven non-small-cell lung cancer underwent F-FDG PET/computed tomography scanning at about 1 h (early) and 2 h (delayed) after intravenous injection of F-FDG. MTV, SUV, and TLG of the primary tumor were all measured. Student's t-test and Wilcoxon's signed-rank test for paired data were used to compare MTV, SUV, and TLG between the two scans. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess agreement in PET parameters between the two scans and between the measurements made by two observers. RESULTS: MTV was not significantly different (P=0.17) between the two scans. However, SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, and TLG increased significantly from the early to the delayed scans (P<0.0001 for all). The median percentage change between the two scans in MTV (1.65%) was smaller than in SUVmax (11.76%), SUVmean(10.57%), SUVpeak(13.51%), and TLG (14.34%); the ICC of MTV (0.996) was greater than that of SUVmax (0.933), SUVmean (0.952), SUVpeak (0.928), and TLG (0.982). Interobserver agreement between the two radiologists was excellent for MTV, SUV, and TLG on both scans (ICC: 0.934-0.999). CONCLUSION: MTV is not sensitive to common clinical variations in F-FDG uptake time, its consistency is greater than that of SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, and TLG, and it has excellent interobserver agreement.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that the metabolic tumor volume (MTV) of primary non-small-cell lung cancer is not sensitive to differences in F-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) uptake time, and to compare this consistency of MTV measurements with that of standardized uptake value (SUV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG). METHODS: Under Institutional Review Board approval, 134 consecutive patients with histologically proven non-small-cell lung cancer underwent F-FDG PET/computed tomography scanning at about 1 h (early) and 2 h (delayed) after intravenous injection of F-FDG. MTV, SUV, and TLG of the primary tumor were all measured. Student's t-test and Wilcoxon's signed-rank test for paired data were used to compare MTV, SUV, and TLG between the two scans. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess agreement in PET parameters between the two scans and between the measurements made by two observers. RESULTS:MTV was not significantly different (P=0.17) between the two scans. However, SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, and TLG increased significantly from the early to the delayed scans (P<0.0001 for all). The median percentage change between the two scans in MTV (1.65%) was smaller than in SUVmax (11.76%), SUVmean(10.57%), SUVpeak(13.51%), and TLG (14.34%); the ICC of MTV (0.996) was greater than that of SUVmax (0.933), SUVmean (0.952), SUVpeak (0.928), and TLG (0.982). Interobserver agreement between the two radiologists was excellent for MTV, SUV, and TLG on both scans (ICC: 0.934-0.999). CONCLUSION:MTV is not sensitive to common clinical variations in F-FDG uptake time, its consistency is greater than that of SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, and TLG, and it has excellent interobserver agreement.
Authors: Percy Lee; Jose G Bazan; Philip W Lavori; Dilani K Weerasuriya; Andrew Quon; Quynh-Thu Le; Heather A Wakelee; Edward E Graves; Billy W Loo Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Hao Zhang; Kristen Wroblewski; Shengri Liao; Rony Kampalath; Bill C Penney; Yi Zhang; Yonglin Pu Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Maria Werner-Wasik; Arden D Nelson; Walter Choi; Yoshio Arai; Peter F Faulhaber; Patrick Kang; Fabio D Almeida; Ying Xiao; Nitin Ohri; Kristin D Brockway; Jonathan W Piper; Aaron S Nelson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christophe Van de Wiele; Vibeke Kruse; Peter Smeets; Mike Sathekge; Alex Maes Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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
Authors: Esther Mena; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Mehdi Taghipour; Abhinav K Jha; Esther Vicente; Jennifer Xiao; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.794