Daniela E Oprea-Lager1, Gem Kramer2, Peter M van de Ven3, Alfons J M van den Eertwegh4, Reindert J A van Moorselaar5, Patrick Schober6, Otto S Hoekstra2, Adriaan A Lammertsma2, Ronald Boellaard2. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands d.oprea-lager@vumc.nl. 2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Urology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and. 6. Department of Anesthesiology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Repeatable quantification is essential when using (18)F-fluoromethylcholine PET/CT to monitor treatment response in prostate cancer. It has been shown that SUV normalized to the area under the blood activity concentration curve (SUVAUC) provides a better correlation with full kinetic analysis than does standard SUV. However, the precision of SUVAUC is not known yet. The purpose of this study was to assess the repeatability of various semiquantitative (18)F-fluoromethylcholine parameters in prostate cancer. METHODS: Twelve patients (mean age ± SD, 64 ± 8 y) with metastasized prostate cancer underwent two sets of (18)F-fluoromethylcholine PET/CT scans, on consecutive days. Each set consisted of a 30-min dynamic PET/CT scan of the chest after intravenous administration of 200 MBq of (18)F-fluoromethylcholine, followed by a whole-body PET/CT scan at 40 min. The dynamic scan was used to derive the area under the blood activity concentration curve. Lesion uptake was derived from the whole-body scan using various types of volumes of interest: maximum, peak, and mean. Each of these parameters was normalized to injected activity per body weight, area under the blood activity concentration curve, and blood concentration itself at 40 min, resulting in several types of SUVs: SUV, SUVAUC, and SUVTBR The test-retest repeatability of these metrics, as well as metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total uptake of choline in the lesion, were studied. The level of agreement between test-retest data and reliability was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, repeatability coefficients, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: A total of 67 choline-avid metastases were identified: 44 bone lesions and 23 lymph node lesions. In the case of SUVmax, the repeatability coefficients for SUV, SUVAUC, and SUVTBR were 26% (ICC, 0.95), 31% (ICC, 0.95), and 46% (ICC, 0.89), respectively. Similar values were obtained for SUVpeak and SUVmean The repeatability of SUVAUC was comparable to that of SUVmax, SUVpeak, and SUVmean. Tissue type and tumor localization did not affect repeatability. An MTV of less than 4.2 cm(3) had larger variability than larger volumes (repeatability coefficient, 45% vs. 29%; P = 0.048). The repeatability coefficient did not significantly differ between lesions with SUVpeak above or below the median value of 8.3 (19% vs. 28%; P = 0.264). CONCLUSION: The repeatability of SUVAUC was comparable to that of standard SUV. The repeatability coefficients of various semiquantitative (18)F-fluoromethylcholine parameters (SUV, MTV, and total uptake in the lesion) were approximately 35%. Larger differences are likely to represent treatment effects.
UNLABELLED: Repeatable quantification is essential when using (18)F-fluoromethylcholine PET/CT to monitor treatment response in prostate cancer. It has been shown that SUV normalized to the area under the blood activity concentration curve (SUVAUC) provides a better correlation with full kinetic analysis than does standard SUV. However, the precision of SUVAUC is not known yet. The purpose of this study was to assess the repeatability of various semiquantitative (18)F-fluoromethylcholine parameters in prostate cancer. METHODS: Twelve patients (mean age ± SD, 64 ± 8 y) with metastasized prostate cancer underwent two sets of (18)F-fluoromethylcholine PET/CT scans, on consecutive days. Each set consisted of a 30-min dynamic PET/CT scan of the chest after intravenous administration of 200 MBq of (18)F-fluoromethylcholine, followed by a whole-body PET/CT scan at 40 min. The dynamic scan was used to derive the area under the blood activity concentration curve. Lesion uptake was derived from the whole-body scan using various types of volumes of interest: maximum, peak, and mean. Each of these parameters was normalized to injected activity per body weight, area under the blood activity concentration curve, and blood concentration itself at 40 min, resulting in several types of SUVs: SUV, SUVAUC, and SUVTBR The test-retest repeatability of these metrics, as well as metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total uptake of choline in the lesion, were studied. The level of agreement between test-retest data and reliability was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, repeatability coefficients, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: A total of 67 choline-avid metastases were identified: 44 bone lesions and 23 lymph node lesions. In the case of SUVmax, the repeatability coefficients for SUV, SUVAUC, and SUVTBR were 26% (ICC, 0.95), 31% (ICC, 0.95), and 46% (ICC, 0.89), respectively. Similar values were obtained for SUVpeak and SUVmean The repeatability of SUVAUC was comparable to that of SUVmax, SUVpeak, and SUVmean. Tissue type and tumor localization did not affect repeatability. An MTV of less than 4.2 cm(3) had larger variability than larger volumes (repeatability coefficient, 45% vs. 29%; P = 0.048). The repeatability coefficient did not significantly differ between lesions with SUVpeak above or below the median value of 8.3 (19% vs. 28%; P = 0.264). CONCLUSION: The repeatability of SUVAUC was comparable to that of standard SUV. The repeatability coefficients of various semiquantitative (18)F-fluoromethylcholine parameters (SUV, MTV, and total uptake in the lesion) were approximately 35%. Larger differences are likely to represent treatment effects.
Authors: Hebert Alberto Vargas; Gem M Kramer; Andrew M Scott; Andrew Weickhardt; Andreas A Meier; Nicole Parada; Bradley J Beattie; John L Humm; Kevin D Staton; Pat B Zanzonico; Serge K Lyashchenko; Jason S Lewis; Maqsood Yaqub; Ramon E Sosa; Alfons J van den Eertwegh; Ian D Davis; Uwe Ackermann; Kunthi Pathmaraj; Robert C Schuit; Albert D Windhorst; Sue Chua; Wolfgang A Weber; Steven M Larson; Howard I Scher; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Otto S Hoekstra; Michael J Morris Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bernard H E Jansen; Matthijs C F Cysouw; André N Vis; Reindert J A van Moorselaar; Jens Voortman; Yves J L Bodar; Patrick R Schober; N Harry Hendrikse; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; D E Oprea-Lager Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gerbrand M Kramer; Maqsood Yaqub; Herbert A Vargas; Robert C Schuit; Albert D Windhorst; Alfonsus J M van den Eertwegh; Astrid A M van der Veldt; Andries M Bergman; Eva M Burnazi; Jason S Lewis; Sua Chua; Kevin D Staton; Brad J Beattie; John L Humm; Ian D Davis; Andrew J Weickhardt; Andrew M Scott; Michael J Morris; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bernard H E Jansen; Gem M Kramer; Matthijs C F Cysouw; Maqsood M Yaqub; Bart de Keizer; Jules Lavalaye; Jan Booij; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Michael J Morris; André N Vis; Reindert J A van Moorselaar; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; Daniela E Oprea-Lager Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Taylor R Kavanagh; William J Mischler; Eline E Verwer; You Feng; Kazue Takahashi; Shuyan Wang; Timothy M Shoup; Ramesh Neelamegam; Jing Yang; Nicolas J Guehl; Chongzhao Ran; Walter Massefski; Ye Cui; Souheil El-Chemaly; Peter M Sadow; William M Oldham; Marie F Kijewski; Georges El Fakhri; Marc D Normandin; Carmen Priolo Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Francesco Ceci; Ken Herrmann; Boris Hadaschik; Paolo Castellucci; Stefano Fanti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: G M Kramer; Y Liu; A J de Langen; E P Jansma; I Trigonis; M-C Asselin; A Jackson; L Kenny; E O Aboagye; O S Hoekstra; R Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 9.236