Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
European Radiology
Erschienen in: European Radiology 8/2014

01.08.2014 | Nuclear Medicine

Variability of average SUV from several hottest voxels is lower than that of SUVmax and SUVpeak

verfasst von: E. Laffon, F. Lamare, H. de Clermont, I. A. Burger, R. Marthan

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 8/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To assess variability of the average standard uptake value (SUV) computed by varying the number of hottest voxels within an 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG)-positive lesion. This SUV metric was compared with the maximal SUV (SUVmax: the hottest voxel) and peak SUV (SUVpeak: SUVmax and its 26 neighbouring voxels).

Methods

Twelve lung cancer patients (20 lesions) were analysed using PET dynamic acquisition involving ten successive 2.5-min frames. In each frame and lesion, average SUV obtained from the N = 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30 hottest voxels (SUVmax–N ), SUVmax and SUVpeak were assessed. The relative standard deviations (SDrs) from ten frames were calculated for each SUV metric and lesion, yielding the mean relative SD from 20 lesions for each SUV metric (SDr N , SDrmax and SDrpeak), and hence relative measurement error and repeatability (MEr–R).

Results

For each N, SDr N was significantly lower than SDrmax and SDrpeak. SDr N correlated strongly with N: 6.471 × N -0.103 (r = 0.994; P < 0.01). MEr–R of SUVmax-30 was 8.94–12.63 % (95 % CL), versus 13.86–19.59 % and 13.41–18.95 % for SUVmax and SUVpeak respectively.

Conclusions

Variability of SUVmax–N is significantly lower than for SUVmax and SUVpeak. Further prospective studies should be performed to determine the optimal total hottest volume, as voxel volume may depend on the PET system.

Key Points

• PET imaging provides functional parameters of 18 F-FDG-positive lesions, such as SUVmax and SUVpeak.
• Averaging SUV from several hottest voxels (SUVmax- N ) is a further SUV metric.
• Variability of SUVmax– N is significantly lower than SUVmax and SUVpeak variability.
• SUVmax– N should improve SUV accuracy for predicting outcome or assessing treatment response.
• An optimal total hottest volume should be determined through further prospective studies.
Literatur
1.
Visvikis D, Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze-Le Rest D (2012) The age of reason for FDG PET image-derived indices. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:1670–1672PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
2.
Boellaard R (2009) Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 50:11S–20SPubMedCrossRef
3.
Wahl RL, Zasadny K, Helvie M, Hutchins GD, Weber B, Cody R (1993) Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol 11:2101–2111PubMed
4.
Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumours. J Nucl Med 50:122S–150SPubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
5.
Visser EP, Boerman OC, Oyen WJG (2010) SUV: from silly useless value to smart uptake value. J Nucl Med 51:173–175PubMedCrossRef
6.
Tylski P, Stute S, Grotus N et al (2010) Comparative assessment of methods for estimating tumor volume and standardized uptake value in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 51:268–276PubMedCrossRef
7.
Vanderhoek M, Perlman SB, Jeraj R (2012) Impact of the definition of peak standardized uptake value on quantification of treatment response. J Nucl Med 53:4–11PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
8.
Burger IA, Huser DM, Burger C, von Schulthess GK, Buck A (2012) Repeatability of FDG quantification in tumor imaging: averaged SUVs are superior to SUVmax. Nucl Med Biol 39:666–670PubMedCrossRef
9.
Hatt M, Visvikis D, Albarghach NM, Tixier F, Pradier O, Cheze-Le Rest D (2011) Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET image-based parameters in oesophageal cancer and impact of tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:1191–1202PubMedCrossRef
10.
Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I (2007) Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 48:932–945PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
13.
Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA et al (2010) FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:181–200PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
14.
Tixier F, Hatt M, Le Rest CC, Le Pogam A, Corcos L, Visvikis D (2012) Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 53:693–700PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
15.
Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze Le Rest C, Pradier O, Visvikis D (2013) Robustness of intratumour F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:1662–1671PubMedCrossRef
16.
Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T et al (1999) Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging 2:159–171PubMedCrossRef
17.
Chen HH, Chiu NT, Su WC, Guo HR, Lee BF (2012) Prognostic value of whole-body total lesion glycolysis at pretreatment FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology 264:559–566PubMedCrossRef
18.
Soussan M, Chouahnia K, Maisonobe J-A et al (2013) Prognostic implications of volume-based measurements on FDG PET/CT in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer after induction chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:668–676PubMedCrossRef
19.
Scheffler M, Zander T, Nogova L et al (2013) Prognostic impact of [18F]fluorothymidine and [18F]fluoro-D-glucose baseline uptakes in patients with lung cancer treated first-line with erlotinib. PLoS ONE 8:e53081PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
20.
Laffon E, de Clermont H, Lamare F, Marthan R (2013) Variability of total lesion glycolysis by 18FDG-positive tissue thresholding in lung cancer. J Nucl Med Technol 41:186–191PubMedCrossRef
21.
Lambin P, Roelofs E, Reymen B et al (2013) Rapid learning health care in oncology—an approach towards decision support systems enabling customised radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 109:159–164PubMedCrossRef
22.
Ambrosini V, Nicolini S, Caroli P (2012) PET/CT imaging in different types of lung cancer: an overview. Eur J Radiol 81:988–1001PubMedCrossRef
23.
Laffon E, de Clermont H, Marthan R (2013) Variability of (18)F-FDG-positive lung lesion volume by thresholding. Eur Radiol 23:1131–1137PubMedCrossRef
24.
Boellaard R (2011) Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med 52:93S–100SPubMedCrossRef
25.
de Langen AJ, Vincent A, Velasquez LM et al (2012) Repeatability of 18F-FDG uptake measurements in tumors: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Med 53:701–708PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Variability of average SUV from several hottest voxels is lower than that of SUVmax and SUVpeak
verfasst von
E. Laffon
F. Lamare
H. de Clermont
I. A. Burger
R. Marthan
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2014
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 8/2014
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3222-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2014

European Radiology 8/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Gastrointestinal

Preoperative differentiation between T1a and ≥T1b gallbladder cancer: combined interpretation of high-resolution ultrasound and multidetector-row computed tomography

Erratum

Erratum to: Preoperative lymph node staging in patients with primary prostate cancer: comparison and correlation of quantitative imaging parameters in diffusion-weighted imaging and 11C-choline PET/CT

Musculoskeletal

Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation of cartilage repair after microfracture (MF) treatment for adult unstable osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) in the ankle: correlations with clinical outcome

Vascular-Interventional

Abdominal aortic aneurysm calcification and thrombus volume are not associated with outcome following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Urogenital

Preoperative lymph node staging in patients with primary prostate cancer: comparison and correlation of quantitative imaging parameters in diffusion-weighted imaging and 11C-choline PET/CT

Erratum

Erratum to: Underestimation rate of lobular intraepithelial neoplasia in vacuum-assisted breast biopsy

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

23.04.2024 Pankreaskarzinom Nachrichten

Die Empfehlungen zur Therapie des Pankreaskarzinoms wurden um zwei Off-Label-Anwendungen erweitert. Und auch im Bereich der Früherkennung gibt es Aktualisierungen.

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

18.04.2024 Pädiatrische Notfallmedizin Nachrichten

Im Choosing-Wisely-Programm, das für die deutsche Initiative „Klug entscheiden“ Pate gestanden hat, sind erstmals Empfehlungen zum Umgang mit Notfällen von Kindern erschienen. Fünf Dinge gilt es demnach zu vermeiden.

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

13.04.2024 Klinik aktuell Kongressbericht

Die Teilnehmer eines Forums beim DGIM-Kongress waren sich einig: Fehler in der Medizin sind häufig in ungeeigneten Prozessen und mangelnder Kommunikation begründet. Gespräche mit Patienten und im Team können helfen.

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

08.04.2024 Andrologie Nachrichten

Stark, erfolgreich, allzeit belastbar – das sind Erwartungen, die Jungen und Männer von der Gesellschaft spüren. Das kann sie „toxisch“ werden lassen – und letztlich sogar der Gesundheit schaden, mahnt Dr. Dirk Sander von der Deutschen Aidshilfe.

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise