Literature DB >> 28191877

A virtual clinical trial comparing static versus dynamic PET imaging in measuring response to breast cancer therapy.

Kristen A Wangerin1, Mark Muzi, Lanell M Peterson, Hannah M Linden, Alena Novakova, David A Mankoff, Paul E Kinahan.   

Abstract

We developed a method to evaluate variations in the PET imaging process in order to characterize the relative ability of static and dynamic metrics to measure breast cancer response to therapy in a clinical trial setting. We performed a virtual clinical trial by generating 540 independent and identically distributed PET imaging study realizations for each of 22 original dynamic fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) breast cancer patient studies pre- and post-therapy. Each noise realization accounted for known sources of uncertainty in the imaging process, such as biological variability and SUV uptake time. Four definitions of SUV were analyzed, which were SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, and SUV50%. We performed a ROC analysis on the resulting SUV and kinetic parameter uncertainty distributions to assess the impact of the variability on the measurement capabilities of each metric. The kinetic macro parameter, K i , showed more variability than SUV (mean CV K i   =  17%, SUV  =  13%), but K i pre- and post-therapy distributions also showed increased separation compared to the SUV pre- and post-therapy distributions (mean normalized difference K i   =  0.54, SUV  =  0.27). For the patients who did not show perfect separation between the pre- and post-therapy parameter uncertainty distributions (ROC AUC  <  1), dynamic imaging outperformed SUV in distinguishing metabolic change in response to therapy, ranging from 12 to 14 of 16 patients over all SUV definitions and uptake time scenarios (p  <  0.05). For the patient cohort in this study, which is comprised of non-high-grade ER+  tumors, K i outperformed SUV in an ROC analysis of the parameter uncertainty distributions pre- and post-therapy. This methodology can be applied to different scenarios with the ability to inform the design of clinical trials using PET imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28191877      PMCID: PMC5713892          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa6023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  47 in total

1.  Instrumentation factors affecting variance and bias of quantifying tracer uptake with PET/CT.

Authors:  R K Doot; J S Scheuermann; P E Christian; J S Karp; P E Kinahan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis.

Authors:  Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-04-20       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 3.  Quantitative assessment of dynamic PET imaging data in cancer imaging.

Authors:  Mark Muzi; Finbarr O'Sullivan; David A Mankoff; Robert K Doot; Larry A Pierce; Brenda F Kurland; Hannah M Linden; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 2.546

4.  Impact of the definition of peak standardized uptake value on quantification of treatment response.

Authors:  Matt Vanderhoek; Scott B Perlman; Robert Jeraj
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Dynamic PET simulator via tomographic emission projection for kinetic modeling and parametric image studies.

Authors:  Ida Häggström; Bradley J Beattie; C Ross Schmidtlein
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Measurement of regional cerebral glucose utilization with fluorine-18-FDG and PET in heterogeneous tissues: theoretical considerations and practical procedure.

Authors:  G Lucignani; K C Schmidt; R M Moresco; G Striano; F Colombo; L Sokoloff; F Fazio
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET.

Authors:  W A Weber; S I Ziegler; R Thödtmann; A R Hanauske; M Schwaiger
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  18F-FDG kinetics in locally advanced breast cancer: correlation with tumor blood flow and changes in response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Jeffrey Tseng; Lisa K Dunnwald; Erin K Schubert; Jeanne M Link; Satoshi Minoshima; Mark Muzi; David A Mankoff
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  The relationship between FDG uptake in PET scans and biological behavior in breast cancer.

Authors:  Wataru Shimoda; Mitsuhiro Hayashi; Koji Murakami; Tetsunari Oyama; Masakatsu Sunagawa
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.239

10.  Effect of 18F-FDG uptake time on lesion detectability in PET imaging of early stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Kristen A Wangerin; Mark Muzi; Lanell M Peterson; Hannah M Linden; Alena Novakova; Finbarr O'Sullivan; Brenda F Kurland; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2015-09
View more
  7 in total

1.  Quantitative Analysis of Heterogeneous [18F]FDG Static (SUV) vs. Patlak (Ki) Whole-body PET Imaging Using Different Segmentation Methods: a Simulation Study.

Authors:  Mingzan Zhuang; Nicolas A Karakatsanis; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Habib Zaidi
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.488

2.  Improved discrimination between benign and malignant LDCT screening-detected lung nodules with dynamic over static 18F-FDG PET as a function of injected dose.

Authors:  Qing Ye; Jing Wu; Yihuan Lu; Mika Naganawa; Jean-Dominique Gallezot; Tianyu Ma; Yaqiang Liu; Lynn Tanoue; Frank Detterbeck; Justin Blasberg; Ming-Kai Chen; Michael Casey; Richard E Carson; Chi Liu
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 3.  Current status and future of targeted peptide receptor radionuclide positron emission tomography imaging and therapy of gastroenteropancreatic-neuroendocrine tumors.

Authors:  Neil Grey; Michael Silosky; Christopher H Lieu; Bennett B Chin
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-05-07       Impact factor: 5.374

4.  Does whole-body Patlak 18F-FDG PET imaging improve lesion detectability in clinical oncology?

Authors:  Guillaume Fahrni; Nicolas A Karakatsanis; Giulia Di Domenicantonio; Valentina Garibotto; Habib Zaidi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Dynamic FDG-PET/CT in the Initial Staging of Primary Breast Cancer: Clinicopathological Correlations.

Authors:  Kornélia Kajáry; Zsolt Lengyel; Anna-Mária Tőkés; Janina Kulka; Magdolna Dank; Tímea Tőkés
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 3.201

Review 6.  Virtual clinical trials in medical imaging: a review.

Authors:  Ehsan Abadi; William P Segars; Benjamin M W Tsui; Paul E Kinahan; Nick Bottenus; Alejandro F Frangi; Andrew Maidment; Joseph Lo; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-04-11

7.  Comparison between a dual-time-window protocol and other simplified protocols for dynamic total-body 18F-FDG PET imaging.

Authors:  Zhenguo Wang; Yaping Wu; Xiaochen Li; Yan Bai; Hongzhao Chen; Jie Ding; Chushu Shen; Zhanli Hu; Dong Liang; Xin Liu; Hairong Zheng; Yongfeng Yang; Yun Zhou; Meiyun Wang; Tao Sun
Journal:  EJNMMI Phys       Date:  2022-09-14
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.