Ryan P Reddy1, C Ross Schmidtlein2, Romina G Giancipoli3, Audrey Mauguen4, Daniel LaFontaine2, Heiko Schoder2, Lisa Bodei2. 1. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New, York, New York; reddyr@mskcc.org. 2. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New, York, New York. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy; and. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
68Ga-labeled somatostatin analog (SSA) PET/CT is now a standard-of-care component in the management of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). However, treatment response for NETs is still assessed with morphologic size measurements from other modalities, which can result in inaccuracy about the disease burden. Functional tumor volume (FTV) acquired from SSA PET/CT has been suggested as a possible metric, but no validated measurement tool to measure FTV exists. We tested the precision of multiple FTV computational approaches compared with morphologic volume measurements to identify a candidate for incorporation into future FTV studies to assess tumor burden more completely and accurately. Methods: The clinical and imaging data of 327 NET patients were collected at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between December 2016 and April 2018. Patients were required to have SSA PET/CT and dedicated CT scans within 6 wk and were excluded if they had any intervention between scans. When paired studies were evaluated, 150 correlating lesions demonstrated SSA. Lesions were excluded if they contained necrotic components or were lobulated. This exclusion resulted in 94 lesions in 20 patients. The FTV for each lesion was evaluated with a hand-drawn assessment and 3 automated techniques: 50% threshold from SUVmax, 42% threshold from SUVmax, and background-subtracted lesion activity. These measurements were compared with volume calculated from morphologic volume measurements. Results: The FTV calculation methods showed varying correlations with morphologic volume measurements. FTV using a 42% threshold had a 0.706 correlation, hand-drawn volume from PET imaging had a 0.657 correlation, FTV using a 50% threshold had a 0.645 correlation, and background-subtracted lesion activity had a 0.596 correlation. The Bland-Altman plots indicated that all FTV methods had a positive mean difference from morphologic volume, with a 50% threshold showing the smallest mean difference. Conclusion: FTV determined with thresholding of SUVmax demonstrated the strongest correlation with traditional morphologic lesion volume assessment and the least bias. This method was more accurate than FTV calculated from hand-drawn volume assessments. Threshold-based automated FTV assessment promises to better determine disease extent and prognosis in patients with NETs.
68Ga-labeled somatostatin analog (SSA) PET/CT is now a standard-of-care component in the management of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). However, treatment response for NETs is still assessed with morphologic size measurements from other modalities, which can result in inaccuracy about the disease burden. Functional tumor volume (FTV) acquired from SSA PET/CT has been suggested as a possible metric, but no validated measurement tool to measure FTV exists. We tested the precision of multiple FTV computational approaches compared with morphologic volume measurements to identify a candidate for incorporation into future FTV studies to assess tumor burden more completely and accurately. Methods: The clinical and imaging data of 327 NET patients were collected at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between December 2016 and April 2018. Patients were required to have SSA PET/CT and dedicated CT scans within 6 wk and were excluded if they had any intervention between scans. When paired studies were evaluated, 150 correlating lesions demonstrated SSA. Lesions were excluded if they contained necrotic components or were lobulated. This exclusion resulted in 94 lesions in 20 patients. The FTV for each lesion was evaluated with a hand-drawn assessment and 3 automated techniques: 50% threshold from SUVmax, 42% threshold from SUVmax, and background-subtracted lesion activity. These measurements were compared with volume calculated from morphologic volume measurements. Results: The FTV calculation methods showed varying correlations with morphologic volume measurements. FTV using a 42% threshold had a 0.706 correlation, hand-drawn volume from PET imaging had a 0.657 correlation, FTV using a 50% threshold had a 0.645 correlation, and background-subtracted lesion activity had a 0.596 correlation. The Bland-Altman plots indicated that all FTV methods had a positive mean difference from morphologic volume, with a 50% threshold showing the smallest mean difference. Conclusion: FTV determined with thresholding of SUVmax demonstrated the strongest correlation with traditional morphologic lesion volume assessment and the least bias. This method was more accurate than FTV calculated from hand-drawn volume assessments. Threshold-based automated FTV assessment promises to better determine disease extent and prognosis in patients with NETs.
Authors: J Ohnona; V Nataf; M Gauthe; S Balogova; O Belissant Benesty; J Zhang-Yin; J N Talbot; F Montravers Journal: Neoplasma Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 2.575
Authors: Jonathan Strosberg; Ghassan El-Haddad; Edward Wolin; Andrew Hendifar; James Yao; Beth Chasen; Erik Mittra; Pamela L Kunz; Matthew H Kulke; Heather Jacene; David Bushnell; Thomas M O'Dorisio; Richard P Baum; Harshad R Kulkarni; Martyn Caplin; Rachida Lebtahi; Timothy Hobday; Ebrahim Delpassand; Eric Van Cutsem; Al Benson; Rajaventhan Srirajaskanthan; Marianne Pavel; Jaime Mora; Jordan Berlin; Enrique Grande; Nicholas Reed; Ettore Seregni; Kjell Öberg; Maribel Lopera Sierra; Paola Santoro; Thomas Thevenet; Jack L Erion; Philippe Ruszniewski; Dik Kwekkeboom; Eric Krenning Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marianne E Pavel; John D Hainsworth; Eric Baudin; Marc Peeters; Dieter Hörsch; Robert E Winkler; Judith Klimovsky; David Lebwohl; Valentine Jehl; Edward M Wolin; Kjell Öberg; Eric Van Cutsem; James C Yao Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-11-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michael S Hofman; Grace Kong; Oliver C Neels; Peter Eu; Emily Hong; Rodney J Hicks Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: James C Yao; Manisha H Shah; Tetsuhide Ito; Catherine Lombard Bohas; Edward M Wolin; Eric Van Cutsem; Timothy J Hobday; Takuji Okusaka; Jaume Capdevila; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Paola Tomassetti; Marianne E Pavel; Sakina Hoosen; Tomas Haas; Jeremie Lincy; David Lebwohl; Kjell Öberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fiona Ohlendorf; Christoph Henkenberens; Thomas Brunkhorst; Tobias L Ross; Hans Christiansen; Frank M Bengel; Thorsten Derlin Journal: Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 2.346
Authors: Irene A Burger; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Aditya Apte; Bradley J Beattie; John L Humm; Mithat Gonen; Steven M Larson; C Ross Schmidtlein Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 2.408