Christie Lin1, Tyler Bradshaw2, Timothy Perk1, Stephanie Harmon1, Jens Eickhoff3, Ngoneh Jallow4, Peter L Choyke5, William L Dahut6, Steven Larson7, John Laurence Humm7, Scott Perlman2,8, Andrea B Apolo6, Michael J Morris9, Glenn Liu1,8, Robert Jeraj10,8. 1. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 4. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. Molecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 6. Medical Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 7. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 8. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, Wisconsin; and. 9. Department of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 10. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin rjeraj@wisc.edu.
Abstract
18F-NaF, a PET radiotracer of bone turnover, has shown potential as an imaging biomarker for assessing the response of bone metastases to therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the repeatability of 18F-NaF PET-derived SUV imaging metrics in individual bone lesions from patients in a multicenter study. METHODS: Thirty-five castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with multiple metastases underwent 2 whole-body (test-retest) 18F-NaF PET/CT scans 3 ± 2 d apart from 1 of 3 imaging sites. A total of 411 bone lesions larger than 1.5 cm3 were automatically segmented using an SUV threshold of 15 g/mL. Two levels of analysis were performed: lesion-level, in which measures were extracted from individual-lesion regions of interest (ROI), and patient-level, in which all lesions within a patient were grouped into a patient ROI for analysis. Uptake was quantified with SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVtotal Test-retest repeatability was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation, critical percentage difference, and repeatability coefficient. The 95% limit of agreement (LOA) of the ratio between test and retest measurements was calculated. RESULTS: At the lesion level, the coefficient of variation for SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVtotal was 14.1%, 6.6%, and 25.5%, respectively. At the patient level, it was slightly smaller: 12.0%, 5.3%, and 18.5%, respectively. ICC was excellent (>0.95) for all SUV metrics. Lesion-level 95% LOA for SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVtotal was (0.76, 1.32), (0.88, 1.14), and (0.63, 1.71), respectively. Patient-level 95% LOA was slightly narrower, at (0.79, 1.26), (0.89, 1.10), and (0.70, 1.44), respectively. We observed significant differences in the variance and sample mean of lesion-level and patient-level measurements between imaging sites. CONCLUSION: The repeatability of SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVtotal for 18F-NaF PET/CT was similar between lesion- and patient-level ROIs. We found significant differences in lesion-level and patient-level distributions between sites. These results can be used to establish 18F-NaF PET-based criteria for assessing treatment response at the lesion and patient levels. 18F-NaF PET demonstrates repeatability levels useful for clinically quantifying the response of bone lesions to therapy.
18F-NaF, a PET radiotracer of bone turnover, has shown potential as an imaging biomarker for assessing the response of bone metastases to therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the repeatability of 18F-NaF PET-derived SUV imaging metrics in individual bone lesions from patients in a multicenter study. METHODS: Thirty-five castration-resistant prostate cancerpatients with multiple metastases underwent 2 whole-body (test-retest) 18F-NaF PET/CT scans 3 ± 2 d apart from 1 of 3 imaging sites. A total of 411 bone lesions larger than 1.5 cm3 were automatically segmented using an SUV threshold of 15 g/mL. Two levels of analysis were performed: lesion-level, in which measures were extracted from individual-lesion regions of interest (ROI), and patient-level, in which all lesions within a patient were grouped into a patient ROI for analysis. Uptake was quantified with SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVtotal Test-retest repeatability was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation, critical percentage difference, and repeatability coefficient. The 95% limit of agreement (LOA) of the ratio between test and retest measurements was calculated. RESULTS: At the lesion level, the coefficient of variation for SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVtotal was 14.1%, 6.6%, and 25.5%, respectively. At the patient level, it was slightly smaller: 12.0%, 5.3%, and 18.5%, respectively. ICC was excellent (>0.95) for all SUV metrics. Lesion-level 95% LOA for SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVtotal was (0.76, 1.32), (0.88, 1.14), and (0.63, 1.71), respectively. Patient-level 95% LOA was slightly narrower, at (0.79, 1.26), (0.89, 1.10), and (0.70, 1.44), respectively. We observed significant differences in the variance and sample mean of lesion-level and patient-level measurements between imaging sites. CONCLUSION: The repeatability of SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVtotal for 18F-NaF PET/CT was similar between lesion- and patient-level ROIs. We found significant differences in lesion-level and patient-level distributions between sites. These results can be used to establish 18F-NaF PET-based criteria for assessing treatment response at the lesion and patient levels. 18F-NaF PET demonstrates repeatability levels useful for clinically quantifying the response of bone lesions to therapy.
Authors: Linda M Velasquez; Ronald Boellaard; Georgia Kollia; Wendy Hayes; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Susan M Galbraith Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: David S Binns; Andrea Pirzkall; Wei Yu; Jason Callahan; Linda Mileshkin; Peter Conti; Andrew M Scott; David Macfarlane; Bernard M Fine; Rodney J Hicks Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Eric M Rohren; Elba C Etchebehere; John C Araujo; Brian P Hobbs; Nancy M Swanston; Michael Everding; Tracy Moody; Homer A Macapinlac Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Winfried Brenner; Cheryl Vernon; Mark Muzi; David A Mankoff; Jeanne M Link; Ernest U Conrad; Janet F Eary Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Alison R Roth; Stephanie A Harmon; Timothy G Perk; Jens Eickhoff; Peter L Choyke; Karen A Kurdziel; William L Dahut; Andrea B Apolo; Michael J Morris; Scott B Perlman; Glenn Liu; Robert Jeraj Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Iain Murray; Sarah J Chittenden; Ana M Denis-Bacelar; Cecilia Hindorf; Christopher C Parker; Sue Chua; Glenn D Flux Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Andrea B Apolo; Rosa Nadal; Yusuke Tomita; Nicole N Davarpanah; Lisa M Cordes; Seth M Steinberg; Liang Cao; Howard L Parnes; Rene Costello; Maria J Merino; Les R Folio; Liza Lindenberg; Mark Raffeld; Jeffrey Lin; Min-Jung Lee; Sunmin Lee; Sylvia V Alarcon; Akira Yuno; Nancy A Dawson; Kimaada Allette; Arpita Roy; Dinuka De Silva; Molly M Lee; Tristan M Sissung; William D Figg; Piyush K Agarwal; John J Wright; Yangmin M Ning; James L Gulley; William L Dahut; Donald P Bottaro; Jane B Trepel Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Douglas G McNeel; Jens C Eickhoff; Laura E Johnson; Alison R Roth; Timothy G Perk; Lawrence Fong; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Ellen Wargowski; Robert Jeraj; Glenn Liu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stephanie A Harmon; Timothy Perk; Christie Lin; Jens Eickhoff; Peter L Choyke; William L Dahut; Andrea B Apolo; John L Humm; Steven M Larson; Michael J Morris; Glenn Liu; Robert Jeraj Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 44.544