Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Prostate Cancer | Original research

Evaluation of SUV normalized by lean body mass (SUL) in ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT: a bi-centric analysis

Authors: Andrei Gafita, Jeremie Calais, Charlott Franz, Isabel Rauscher, Hui Wang, Andrew Roberstson, Johannes Czernin, Wolfgang A. Weber, Matthias Eiber

Published in: EJNMMI Research | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of this analysis was to investigate whether the standardized uptake value (SUV) normalized by lean body mass (SUL) is a more appropriate quantitative parameter compared to the commonly used SUV normalized by patient’s weight in ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT.

Material and methods

⁶⁸Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT scans of 121 patients with prostate cancer from two institutions were evaluated. Liver SUV was measured within a 3-cm volume-of-interest (VOI) in the right hepatic lobe and corrected for lean body mass using the Janmahasatian formula. SUV and SUL repeatability between baseline and follow-up scans of the same patients were assessed.

Results

SUV was significantly positively correlated with body weight (r = 0.35, p = 0.02). In contrast, SUL was not correlated with body weight (r = 0.23, p = 0.07). No significant differences were found between baseline and follow-up scan (p = 0.52).

Conclusion

The Janmahasatian formula annuls the positive correlations between SUV and body weight, suggesting that SUL is preferable to SUV for quantitative analyses of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT scans.

Cheson BD. PET/CT in lymphoma: current overview and future directions. Semin Nucl Med. 2018;48:76–81. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2017.09.007.CrossRefPubMed

Subramaniam SM, Joyce CM, Prashanti L, Gregory R, Gustavo M, Rathan M. The role of PET/CT in the management of cervical cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(2):W192–205. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9830.CrossRefPubMed

van Rossum PS, Fried DV, Zhang L, Hofstetter WL, Ho L, Meijer GJ, et al. The value of (18)F-FDG PET before and after induction chemotherapy for the early prediction of a poor pathologic response to subsequent preoperative chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:71–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3478-2.CrossRefPubMed

Mikhaeel NG, Smith D, Dunn JT, Phillips M, Moller H, Fields PA, et al. Combination of baseline metabolic tumour volume and early response on PET/CT improves progression-free survival prediction in DLBCL. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1209–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3315-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Zaidi H. Quantitative analysis in nuclear medicine imaging | Habib Zaidi | Springer. New York: Springer; 2006.CrossRef

Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. 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. Radiology. 1993;189:847–50. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.189.3.8234714.CrossRefPubMed

Tahari AK, Chien D, Azadi JR, Wahl RL. Optimum lean body formulation for correction of standardized uptake value in PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1481–4. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.113.136986.CrossRefPubMed

Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. Journal of nuclear medicine: official publication. Soc Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122s–50s. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057307.CrossRef

Tahari AK, Paidpally V, Chirindel A, Wahl RL, Subramaniam RM. Two-time-point FDG PET/CT: liver SULmean repeatability. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:402–7. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.14.12719.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Eiber M, Fendler WP, Rowe SP, Calais J, Hofman MS, Maurer T, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands for imaging and therapy. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:67s–76s. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.186767.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M, Beer AJ, Ruffani A, Haller B, et al. Evaluation of Hybrid (6)(8)Ga-PSMA Ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:668–74. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.154153.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Schmidkonz C, Cordes M, Schmidt D, Bauerle T, Goetz TI, Beck M, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT-derived metabolic parameters for determination of whole-body tumor burden and treatment response in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4042-z.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Gaertner FC, Halabi K, Ahmadzadehfar H, Kurpig S, Eppard E, Kotsikopoulos C, et al. Uptake of PSMA-ligands in normal tissues is dependent on tumor load in patients with prostate cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8:55094–103. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.19049.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Demirci E, Sahin OE, Ocak M, Akovali B, Nematyazar J, Kabasakal L. Normal distribution pattern and physiological variants of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging. Nucl Med Commun. 2016;37:1169–79. https://doi.org/10.1097/mnm.0000000000000566.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Fendler WP, Eiber M, Beheshti M, Bomanji J, Ceci F, Cho S, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT: Joint EANM and SNMMI procedure guideline for prostate cancer imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1014–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3670-z.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Eder M, Neels O, Muller M, Bauder-Wust U, Remde Y, Schafer M, et al. Novel preclinical and radiopharmaceutical aspects of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC: a new PET tracer for imaging of prostate cancer. Pharmaceuticals. 2014;7:779–96. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph7070779.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Gafita A, Bieth M, Kroenke M, Tetteh G, Guenther E, Menze B, et al. qPSMA: a semi-automatic software for whole-body tumor burden assessment in prostate cancer using (68)Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.224055.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Hirata K, Kobayashi K, Wong KP, Manabe O, Surmak A, Tamaki N, et al. A semi-automated technique determining the liver standardized uptake value reference for tumor delineation in FDG PET-CT. PLoS One. 2014;9:e105682. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105682.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Eiber M, Herrmann K, Calais J, Hadaschik B, Giesel FL, Hartenbach M, et al. Prostate cancer molecular imaging standardized evaluation (PROMISE): proposed miTNM classification for the interpretation of PSMA-Ligand PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:469–78. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.198119.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Hope TA, Truillet C, Ehman EC, Afshar-Oromieh A, Aggarwal R, Ryan CJ, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging of response to androgen receptor inhibition: first human experience. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:81–4. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.181800.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Afshar-Oromieh A, Debus N, Uhrig M, Hope TA, Evans MJ, Holland-Letz T, et al. Impact of long-term androgen deprivation therapy on PSMA ligand PET/CT in patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2018;45:2045–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4079-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Jansen BHE, Kramer GM, Cysouw MCF, Yaqub MM, de Keizer B, Lavalaye J, et al. Healthy tissue uptake of (68)Ga-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA), (18)F-DCFPyL, (18)F-Fluoromethylcholine (FCH) and (18)F-Dihydrotestosterone (FDHT). J Nucl Med. 2019. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.222505.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Li X, Rowe SP, Leal JP, Gorin MA, Allaf ME, Ross AE, et al. Semiquantitative parameters in PSMA-targeted PET imaging with (18)F-DCFPyL: variability in normal-organ uptake. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:942–6. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.179739.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Seitz AK, Rauscher I, Haller B, Kronke M, Luther S, Heck MM, et al. Preliminary results on response assessment using (68)Ga-HBED-CC-PSMA PET/CT in patients with metastatic prostate cancer undergoing docetaxel chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:602–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3887-x.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Evaluation of SUV normalized by lean body mass (SUL) in 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT: a bi-centric analysis
Authors: Andrei Gafita
Jeremie Calais
Charlott Franz
Isabel Rauscher
Hui Wang
Andrew Roberstson
Johannes Czernin
Wolfgang A. Weber
Matthias Eiber
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Positron Emission Tomography
Published in: EJNMMI Research / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2191-219X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-019-0572-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Evaluation of SUV normalized by lean body mass (SUL) in ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT: a bi-centric analysis

Abstract

Introduction

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

HYNIC and DOMA conjugated radiolabeled bombesin analogs as receptor-targeted probes for scintigraphic detection of breast tumor

First-in-class positron emission tomography tracer for the glucagon receptor

Impact of acquisition time and penalizing factor in a block-sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm on a Si-photomultiplier-based PET-CT system for 18F-FDG

Quantification of myocardial 99mTc-labeled bisphosphonate uptake with cadmium zinc telluride camera in patients with transthyretin-related cardiac amyloidosis

Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of the novel hypoxia PET probe [18F]DiFA and comparison with [18F]FMISO

Optimized dual-time-window protocols for quantitative [18F]flutemetamol and [18F]florbetaben PET studies