Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

Open Access 01-07-2013 | Original Article

Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients

Authors: Charline Lasnon, Cédric Desmonts, Elske Quak, Radj Gervais, Pascal Do, Catherine Dubos-Arvis, Nicolas Aide

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 7/2013

Abstract

Purpose

We prospectively evaluated whether a strategy using point spread function (PSF) reconstruction for both diagnostic and quantitative analysis in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients meets the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) guidelines for harmonization of quantitative values.

Methods

The NEMA NU-2 phantom was used to determine the optimal filter to apply to PSF-reconstructed images in order to obtain recovery coefficients (RCs) fulfilling the EANM guidelines for tumour positron emission tomography (PET) imaging (PSF_EANM). PET data of 52 consecutive NSCLC patients were reconstructed with unfiltered PSF reconstruction (PSF_allpass), PSF_EANM and with a conventional ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm known to meet EANM guidelines. To mimic a situation in which a patient would undergo pre- and post-therapy PET scans on different generation PET systems, standardized uptake values (SUVs) for OSEM reconstruction were compared to SUVs for PSF_EANM and PSF_allpass reconstruction.

Results

Overall, in 195 lesions, Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that the mean ratio between PSF_EANM and OSEM data was 1.03 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.12] and 1.02 (95 % CI 0.90–1.14) for SUV_max and SUV_mean, respectively. No difference was noticed when analysing lesions based on their size and location or on patient body habitus and image noise. Ten patients (84 lesions) underwent two PET scans for response monitoring. Using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria, there was an almost perfect agreement between OSEM_PET1/OSEM_PET2 (current standard) and OSEM_PET1/PSF_EANM-PET2 or PSF_EANM-PET1/OSEM_PET2 with kappa values of 0.95 (95 % CI 0.91–1.00) and 0.99 (95 % CI 0.96–1.00), respectively. The use of PSF_allpass either for pre- or post-treatment (i.e. OSEM_PET1/PSF_allpass-PET2 or PSF_allpass-PET1/OSEM_PET2) showed considerably less agreement with kappa values of 0.75 (95 % CI 0.67–0.83) and 0.86 (95 % CI 0.78–0.94), respectively.

Conclusion

Protocol-optimized images and compliance with EANM guidelines allowed for a reliable pre- and post-therapy evaluation when using different generation PET systems. These data obtained in NSCLC patients could be extrapolated to other solid tumours.

Available only for authorised users

Lv YL, Yuan DM, Wang K, Miao XH, Qian Q, Wei SZ, et al. Diagnostic performance of integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography for mediastinal lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer: a bivariate systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:1350–8.PubMedCrossRef

Eschmann SM, Friedel G, Paulsen F, Reimold M, Hehr T, Budach W, et al. 18F-FDG PET for assessment of therapy response and preoperative re-evaluation after neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:463–71.PubMedCrossRef

Hicks RJ, Kalff V, MacManus MP, Ware RE, McKenzie AF, Matthews JP, et al. The utility of (18)F-FDG PET for suspected recurrent non-small cell lung cancer after potentially curative therapy: impact on management and prognostic stratification. J Nucl Med 2001;42:1605–13.PubMed

Bengtsson T, Hicks RJ, Peterson A, Port RE. 18F-FDG PET as a surrogate biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib: newly identified lesions are more informative than standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med 2012;53:530–7.PubMedCrossRef

Hicks RJ. Role of 18F-FDG PET in assessment of response in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2009;50 Suppl 1:31S–42S.PubMedCrossRef

Huang W, Zhou T, Ma L, Sun H, Gong H, Wang J, et al. Standard uptake value and metabolic tumor volume of (18)F-FDG PET/CT predict short-term outcome early in the course of chemoradiotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:1628–35.PubMedCrossRef

Visser EP, Boerman OC, Oyen WJ. SUV: from silly useless value to smart uptake value. J Nucl Med 2010;51:173–5.PubMedCrossRef

Dijkman BG, Schuurbiers OC, Vriens D, Looijen-Salamon M, Bussink J, Timmer-Bonte JN, et al. The role of (18)F-FDG PET in the differentiation between lung metastases and synchronous second primary lung tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:2037–47.PubMedCrossRef

Hellwig D, Graeter TP, Ukena D, Groeschel A, Sybrecht GW, Schaefers HJ, et al. 18F-FDG PET for mediastinal staging of lung cancer: which SUV threshold makes sense? J Nucl Med 2007;48:1761–6.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Agarwal M, Brahmanday G, Bajaj SK, Ravikrishnan KP, Wong CY. Revisiting the prognostic value of preoperative (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in early-stage (I & II) non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:691–8.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Liao S, Penney BC, Wroblewski K, Zhang H, Simon CA, Kampalath R, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden on 18F-FDG PET in nonsurgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39:27–38.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 2009;50 Suppl 1:11S–20S.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Boellaard R. Mutatis mutandis: harmonize the standard! J Nucl Med 2012;53:1–3.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Buckler AJ, Boellaard R. Standardization of quantitative imaging: the time is right, and 18F-FDG PET/CT is a good place to start. J Nucl Med 2011;52:171–2.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:181–200.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, Brown ML, Royal HD, Siegel BA, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med 2006;47:885–95.PubMed

17.

Boellaard R, Oyen WJ, Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Visser EP, Willemsen AT, et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:2320–33.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Beyer T, Czernin J, Freudenberg LS. Variations in clinical PET/CT operations: results of an international survey of active PET/CT users. J Nucl Med 2011;52:303–10.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Lodge MA, Chaudhry MA, Wahl RL. Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value. J Nucl Med 2012;53:1041–7.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med 2012;53:1716–22.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Alessio AM, Stearns CW, Tong S, Ross SG, Kohlmyer S, Ganin A, et al. Application and evaluation of a measured spatially variant system model for PET image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010;29:938–49.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, Hoekstra O, Paans A, Visser E, et al. Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:392–404.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Lasnon C, Hicks RJ, Beauregard JM, Milner A, Paciencia M, Guizard AV, et al. Impact of point spread function reconstruction on thoracic lymph node staging with 18F-FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2012;37:971–6.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Boellaard R. Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med 2011;52 Suppl 2:93S–100S.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Kelly MD, Declerck JM. SUVref: reducing reconstruction-dependent variation in PET SUV. EJNMMI Res 2011;1:16.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Aide N, Desmonts C, Beauregard JM, Beyer T, Kinross K, Roselt P, et al. High throughput static and dynamic small animal imaging using clinical PET/CT: potential preclinical applications. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:991–1001.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Kadrmas DJ, Casey ME, Conti M, Jakoby BW, Lois C, Townsend DW. Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1315–23.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Andersen FL, Klausen TL, Loft A, Beyer T, Holm S. Clinical evaluation of PET image reconstruction using a spatial resolution model. Eur J Radiol 2012.

29.

Mortazavi-Jehanno N, Giraudet AL, Champion L, Lerebours F, Le Stanc E, Edeline V, et al. Assessment of response to endocrine therapy using FDG PET/CT in metastatic breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39:450–60.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:1773–82.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Zeng GL. Gibbs artifact reduction by nonnegativity constraint. J Nucl Med Technol 2011;39:213–9.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Boussion N, Cheze Le Rest C, Hatt M, Visvikis D. Incorporation of wavelet-based denoising in iterative deconvolution for partial volume correction in whole-body PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36:1064–75.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Levin Klausen T, Høgild Keller S, Vinter Olesen O, Aznar M, Andersen FL. Innovations in PET/CT. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;56:268–79.PubMed

36.

Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S–50S.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Vriens D, Visser EP, de Geus-Oei LF, Oyen WJ. Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:1408–25.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Vanderhoek M, Perlman SB, Jeraj R. Impact of the definition of peak standardized uptake value on quantification of treatment response. J Nucl Med 2012;53:4–11.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Velasquez LM, Boellaard R, Kollia G, Hayes W, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1646–54.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Benz MR, Evilevitch V, Allen-Auerbach MS, Eilber FC, Phelps ME, Czernin J, et al. Treatment monitoring by 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with sarcomas: interobserver variability of quantitative parameters in treatment-induced changes in histopathologically responding and nonresponding tumors. J Nucl Med 2008;49:1038–46.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients
Authors: Charline Lasnon
Cédric Desmonts
Elske Quak
Radj Gervais
Pascal Do
Catherine Dubos-Arvis
Nicolas Aide
Publication date: 01-07-2013
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 7/2013
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2391-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2013

18F-FDOPA PET/CT for detection of recurrence in patients with glioma: prospective comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT

Ethical, green and sustainable nuclear medicine

Glucose corrected standardized uptake value (SUVgluc) in the evaluation of brain lesions with 18F-FDG PET

Congenital isolated H-type tracheo-oesophageal fistula identified by milk scan

Appropriate use criteria for amyloid PET imaging cannot replace guidelines: On behalf of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine

Interventional nuclear medicine