Eric Laffon1, Irene A Burger2, Frederic Lamare3, Henri de Clermont3, Roger Marthan4. 1. CHU de Bordeaux, Service de Médecine Nucléaire, Pessac, France Université de Bordeaux 2, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique, Bordeaux, France INSERM U 1045, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique, Bordeaux, France; and elaffon@u-bordeaux2.fr. 2. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical Radiology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. CHU de Bordeaux, Service de Médecine Nucléaire, Pessac, France. 4. Université de Bordeaux 2, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique, Bordeaux, France INSERM U 1045, Centre de Recherche Cardio-Thoracique, Bordeaux, France; and.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The performance of an average SUV over a 1-mL-volume sphere within an (18)F-FDG-positive lesion resulting in the highest possible value (SUVpeakW) was compared with that of an average SUV computed from the 40 hottest voxels, irrespective of their location within the lesion (SUVmax-40). METHODS: Dynamic PET performed in 20 lung cancer lesions yielded for each SUV metric its mean value, relative measurement error, and repeatability (MEr-R). RESULTS: SUVpeakW mean value was significantly 9.66% lower than that of SUVmax-40 (P < 0.0001). SUVpeakW and SUVmax-40 MEr-R were significantly lower than the MEr-R of SUVmax (the hottest voxel): 9.35%-13.21% and 8.84%-12.49% versus 13.86%-19.59%, respectively, (95% confidence limit; P < 0.0001). Although being marginal, SUVpeakW MEr-R was not significantly greater than SUVmax-40 MEr-R (P = 0.086). CONCLUSION: SUVmax-40 is more likely to represent the most metabolically active portions of tumors than SUVpeakW, with close variability performance.
UNLABELLED: The performance of an average SUV over a 1-mL-volume sphere within an (18)F-FDG-positive lesion resulting in the highest possible value (SUVpeakW) was compared with that of an average SUV computed from the 40 hottest voxels, irrespective of their location within the lesion (SUVmax-40). METHODS: Dynamic PET performed in 20 lung cancer lesions yielded for each SUV metric its mean value, relative measurement error, and repeatability (MEr-R). RESULTS: SUVpeakW mean value was significantly 9.66% lower than that of SUVmax-40 (P < 0.0001). SUVpeakW and SUVmax-40 MEr-R were significantly lower than the MEr-R of SUVmax (the hottest voxel): 9.35%-13.21% and 8.84%-12.49% versus 13.86%-19.59%, respectively, (95% confidence limit; P < 0.0001). Although being marginal, SUVpeakW MEr-R was not significantly greater than SUVmax-40 MEr-R (P = 0.086). CONCLUSION: SUVmax-40 is more likely to represent the most metabolically active portions of tumors than SUVpeakW, with close variability performance.