Literature DB >> 33598849

Evaluation of SUVlean consistency in FDG and PSMA PET/MR with Dixon-, James-, and Janma-based lean body mass correction.

Jun Zhao1, Qiaoyi Xue2, Xing Chen3, Zhiwen You3, Zhe Wang2, Jianmin Yuan2, Hui Liu2, Lingzhi Hu2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate the consistency of various standardized uptake value (SUV) lean body mass (LBM) normalization methods in a clinical positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MR) setting.
METHODS: SUV of brain, liver, prostate, parotid, blood, and muscle were measured in 90 18F-FDG and 28 18F-PSMA PET/MR scans and corrected for LBM using the James, Janma (short for Janmahasatian), and Dixon approaches. The prospective study was performed from December 2018 to August 2020 at Shanghai East Hospital. Forty dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements of non-fat mass were used as the reference standard. Agreement between different LBM methods was assessed by linear regression and Bland-Altman statistics. SUV's dependency on BMI was evaluated by means of linear regression and Pearson correlation.
RESULTS: Compared to DXA, the Dixon approach presented the least bias in LBM/weight% than James and Janma models (bias 0.4±7.3%, - 8.0±9.4%, and - 3.3±8.3% respectively). SUV normalized by body weight (SUVbw) was positively correlated with body mass index (BMI) for both FDG (e.g., liver: r = 0.45, p < 0.001) and PSMA scans (r = 0.20, p = 0.31), while SUV normalized by lean body mass (SUVlean) revealed a decreased dependency on BMI (r = 0.22, 0.08, 0.14, p = 0.04, 0.46, 0.18 for Dixon, James, and Janma models, respectively). The liver SUVbw of obese/overweight patients was significantly larger (p < 0.001) than that of normal patients, whereas the bias was mostly eliminated in SUVlean. One-way ANOVA showed significant difference (p < 0.001) between SUVlean in major organs measured using Dixon method vs James and Janma models.
CONCLUSION: Significant systematic variation was found using different approaches to calculate SUVlean. A consistent correction method should be applied for serial PET/MR scans. The Dixon method provides the most accurate measure of LBM, yielding the least bias of all approaches when compared to DXA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lean body mass; PET/MR; SUV

Year:  2021        PMID: 33598849     DOI: 10.1186/s40658-021-00363-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  EJNMMI Phys        ISSN: 2197-7364


  20 in total

1.  Computerized method for automatic evaluation of lean body mass from PET/CT: comparison with predictive equations.

Authors:  Tao Chan
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Prospective investigation of positron emission tomography in lung nodules.

Authors:  V J Lowe; J W Fletcher; L Gobar; M Lawson; P Kirchner; P Valk; J Karis; K Hubner; D Delbeke; E V Heiberg; E F Patz; R E Coleman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  Monitoring response to therapy in cancer using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytical methods.

Authors:  C J Hoekstra; I Paglianiti; O S Hoekstra; E F Smit; P E Postmus; G J Teule; A A Lammertsma
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  2000-06

4.  Quantification of lean bodyweight.

Authors:  Sarayut Janmahasatian; Stephen B Duffull; Susan Ash; Leigh C Ward; Nuala M Byrne; Bruce Green
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 5.  The applications of PET in clinical oncology.

Authors:  L G Strauss; P S Conti
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Evaluation of various corrections to the standardized uptake value for diagnosis of pulmonary malignancy.

Authors:  Y Menda; D L Bushnell; M T Madsen; K McLaughlin; D Kahn; K H Kernstine
Journal:  Nucl Med Commun       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 1.690

7.  Gallium 68 PSMA-11 PET/MR Imaging in Patients with Intermediate- or High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Sonya Youngju Park; Claudia Zacharias; Caitlyn Harrison; Richard E Fan; Christian Kunder; Negin Hatami; Frederik Giesel; Pejman Ghanouni; Bruce Daniel; Andreas M Loening; Geoffrey A Sonn; Andrei Iagaru
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Optimum lean body formulation for correction of standardized uptake value in PET imaging.

Authors:  Abdel K Tahari; David Chien; Javad R Azadi; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction.

Authors:  K R Zasadny; R L Wahl
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 10.  Segmentation and quantification of adipose tissue by magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Houchun Harry Hu; Jun Chen; Wei Shen
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 2.310

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation.

Authors:  Julian M M Rogasch; Frank Hofheinz; Lutz van Heek; Conrad-Amadeus Voltin; Ronald Boellaard; Carsten Kobe
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-10

Review 2.  Dosing Therapeutic Radiopharmaceuticals in Obese Patients.

Authors:  Merel van Nuland; Tessa F Ververs; Marnix G E H Lam
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 5.923

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.