Gerbrand Maria Kramer1, Virginie Frings2, Nikie Hoetjes2, Otto S Hoekstra2, Egbert F Smit3, Adrianus Johannes de Langen4, Ronald Boellaard2. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ge.kramer@vumc.nl. 2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Pulmonology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and Department of Thoracic Oncology, Netherlands cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Pulmonology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Change in (18)F-FDG uptake may predict response to anticancer treatment. The PERCIST suggest a threshold of 30% change in SUV to define partial response and progressive disease. Evidence underlying these thresholds consists of mixed stand-alone PET and PET/CT data with variable uptake intervals and no consensus on the number of lesions to be assessed. Additionally, there is increasing interest in alternative (18)F-FDG uptake measures such as metabolically active tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis (TLG). The aim of this study was to comprehensively investigate the repeatability of various quantitative whole-body (18)F-FDG metrics in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients as a function of tracer uptake interval and lesion selection strategies. METHODS: Eleven NSCLC patients, with at least 1 intrathoracic lesion 3 cm or greater, underwent double baseline whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans at 60 and 90 min after injection within 3 d. All (18)F-FDG-avid tumors were delineated with an 50% threshold of SUVpeak adapted for local background. SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, TLG, metabolically active tumor volume, and tumor-to-blood and -liver ratios were evaluated, as well as the influence of lesion selection and 2 methods for correction of uptake time differences. RESULTS: The best repeatability was found using the SUV metrics of the averaged PERCIST target lesions (repeatability coefficients < 10%). The correlation between test and retest scans was strong for all uptake measures at either uptake interval (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.97 and R(2) > 0.98). There were no significant differences in repeatability between data obtained 60 and 90 min after injection. When only PERCIST-defined target lesions were included (n = 34), repeatability improved for all uptake values. Normalization to liver or blood uptake or glucose correction did not improve repeatability. However, after correction for uptake time the correlation of SUV measures and TLG between the 60- and 90-min data significantly improved without affecting test-retest performance. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a 15% change of SUVmean/SUVpeak at 60 min after injection can be used to assess response in advanced NSCLC patients if up to 5 PERCIST target lesions are assessed. Lower thresholds could be used in averaged PERCIST target lesions (<10%).
UNLABELLED: Change in (18)F-FDG uptake may predict response to anticancer treatment. The PERCIST suggest a threshold of 30% change in SUV to define partial response and progressive disease. Evidence underlying these thresholds consists of mixed stand-alone PET and PET/CT data with variable uptake intervals and no consensus on the number of lesions to be assessed. Additionally, there is increasing interest in alternative (18)F-FDG uptake measures such as metabolically active tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis (TLG). The aim of this study was to comprehensively investigate the repeatability of various quantitative whole-body (18)F-FDG metrics in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients as a function of tracer uptake interval and lesion selection strategies. METHODS: Eleven NSCLCpatients, with at least 1 intrathoracic lesion 3 cm or greater, underwent double baseline whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans at 60 and 90 min after injection within 3 d. All (18)F-FDG-avid tumors were delineated with an 50% threshold of SUVpeak adapted for local background. SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, TLG, metabolically active tumor volume, and tumor-to-blood and -liver ratios were evaluated, as well as the influence of lesion selection and 2 methods for correction of uptake time differences. RESULTS: The best repeatability was found using the SUV metrics of the averaged PERCIST target lesions (repeatability coefficients < 10%). The correlation between test and retest scans was strong for all uptake measures at either uptake interval (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.97 and R(2) > 0.98). There were no significant differences in repeatability between data obtained 60 and 90 min after injection. When only PERCIST-defined target lesions were included (n = 34), repeatability improved for all uptake values. Normalization to liver or blood uptake or glucose correction did not improve repeatability. However, after correction for uptake time the correlation of SUV measures and TLG between the 60- and 90-min data significantly improved without affecting test-retest performance. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a 15% change of SUVmean/SUVpeak at 60 min after injection can be used to assess response in advanced NSCLCpatients if up to 5 PERCIST target lesions are assessed. Lower thresholds could be used in averaged PERCIST target lesions (<10%).
Authors: Stefanie A de Boer; Daan S Spoor; Riemer H J A Slart; Douwe J Mulder; Melanie Reijrink; Ronald J H Borra; Gerbrand M Kramer; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; Marcel J Greuter Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 3.488
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: Guilherme D Kolinger; David Vállez García; Gerbrand Maria Kramer; Virginie Frings; Gerben J C Zwezerijnen; Egbert F Smit; Adrianus Johannes de Langen; Irène Buvat; Ronald Boellaard Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Lotte Nygård; Marianne C Aznar; Barbara M Fischer; Gitte F Persson; Charlotte B Christensen; Flemming L Andersen; Mirjana Josipovic; Seppo W Langer; Andreas Kjær; Ivan R Vogelius; Søren M Bentzen Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-04-25
Authors: Andreas G Wibmer; Michael J Morris; Mithat Gonen; Junting Zheng; Hedvig Hricak; Steven Larson; Howard I Scher; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jacek Kwiecinski; Sebastien Cadet; Marwa Daghem; Martin L Lassen; Damini Dey; Marc R Dweck; Daniel S Berman; David E Newby; Piotr J Slomka Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Frank Hofheinz; Jörg van den Hoff; Ingo G Steffen; Alexandr Lougovski; Kilian Ego; Holger Amthauer; Ivayla Apostolova Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 3.138