Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

Open Access 13-11-2023 | Original Article

Mitigating SUV uncertainties using total body PET imaging

Authors: Charlotte L. C. Smith, Gerben J. C. Zwezerijnen, Marijke E. den Hollander, Jolijn Weijland, Maqsood Yaqub, Ronald Boellaard

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 4/2024

Abstract

Purpose

Standardised uptake values (SUV) are commonly used to quantify ¹⁸F-FDG lesion uptake. However, SUVs may suffer from several uncertainties and errors. Long-axial field-of-view (LAFOV) PET/CT systems might enable image-based quality control (QC) by deriving ¹⁸F-FDG activity and weight from total body (TB) ¹⁸F-FDG PET images. In this study, we aimed to develop these image-based QC to reduce errors and mitigate SUV uncertainties.

Methods

Twenty-five out of 81 patient scans from a LAFOV PET/CT system were used to determine regression fits for deriving of image-derived activity and weight. Thereafter, the regression fits were applied to 56 independent ¹⁸F-FDG PET scans from the same scanner to determine if injected activity and weight could be obtained accurately from TB and half-body (HB) scans. Additionally, we studied the impact of image-based values on the precision of liver SUVmean and lesion SUVpeak. Finally, 20 scans were acquired from a short-axial field-of-view (SAFOV) PET/CT system to determine if the regression fits also applied to HB scans from a SAFOV system.

Results

Both TB and HB ¹⁸F-FDG activity and weight significantly predicted reported injected activity (r = 0.999; r = 0.984) and weight (r = 0.999; r = 0.987), respectively. After applying the regression fits, ¹⁸F-FDG activity and weight were accurately derived within 4.8% and 3.2% from TB scans and within 4.9% and 3.1% from HB, respectively. Image-derived values also mitigated liver and lesion SUV variability compared with reported values. Moreover, ¹⁸F-FDG activity and weight obtained from a SAFOV scanner were derived within 6.7% and 4.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

¹⁸F-FDG activity and weight can be derived accurately from TB and HB scans, and image-derived values improved SUV precision and corrected for lesion SUV errors. Therefore, image-derived values should be included as QC to generate a more reliable and reproducible quantitative uptake measurement.

Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.CrossRefPubMed

Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):11S-20S. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057182.CrossRefPubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057307.CrossRefPubMed

Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, Meignan M, Hutchings M, Mueller SP, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3048–58. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5229.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1431–4.PubMed

Aide N, Lasnon C, Veit-Haibach P, Sera T, Sattler B, Boellaard R. EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:17–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3740-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-006-0224-1.CrossRefPubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4.CrossRefPubMed

Lasnon C, Houdu B, Kammerer E, Salomon T, Devreese J, Lebasnier A, Aide N. Patient’s weight: a neglected cause of variability in SUV measurements? A survey from an EARL accredited PET centre in 513 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:197–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3214-3.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Filippi L, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Evangelista L, Schillaci O. Long axial field-of-view PET/CT devices: are we ready for the technological revolution? Expert Rev Med Devices. 2022;19:739–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2022.2141111.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Kaalep A, Burggraaff CN, Pieplenbosch S, Verwer EE, Sera T, Zijlstra J, et al. Quantitative implications of the updated EARL 2019 PET-CT performance standards. EJNMMI Phys. 2019;6:28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-019-0257-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Whigham LD, Schoeller DA, Johnson LK, Atkinson RL. Effect of clothing weight on body weight. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013;37:160–1. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2012.20.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Prenosil GA, Sari H, Furstner M, Afshar-Oromieh A, Shi K, Rominger A, Hentschel M. Performance characteristics of the Biograph Vision Quadra PET/CT system with a long axial field of view using the NEMA NU 2–2018 standard. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:476–84. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.261972.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Prenosil GA, Hentschel M, Weitzel T, Sari H, Shi K, Afshar-Oromieh A, Rominger A. EARL compliance measurements on the Biograph Vision Quadra PET/CT system with a long axial field of view. EJNMMI Phys. 2022;9:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-022-00455-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

van Sluis J, van Snick JH, Brouwers AH, Noordzij W, Dierckx R, Borra RJH, et al. EARL compliance and imaging optimisation on the Biograph Vision Quadra PET/CT using phantom and clinical data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49:4652–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-05919-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Zwezerijnen GJC, Eertink JJ, Ferrandez MC, Wiegers SE, Burggraaff CN, Lugtenburg PJ, et al. Reproducibility of [18F]FDG PET/CT liver SUV as reference or normalisation factor. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50:486–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-05977-5.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Kinahan PE, Perlman ES, Sunderland JJ, Subramaniam R, Wollenweber SD, Turkington TG, et al. The QIBA profile for FDG PET/CT as an imaging biomarker measuring response to cancer therapy. Radiology. 2020;294:647–57. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019191882.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Boellaard R. Quantitative oncology molecular analysis suite: ACCURATE. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1753.

19.

Sunderland JJ, Christian PE. Quantitative PET/CT scanner performance characterization based upon the society of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging clinical trials network oncology clinical simulator phantom. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:145–52. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.148056.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Hristova I, Boellaard R, Vogel W, Mottaghy F, Marreaud S, Collette S, et al. Retrospective quality control review of FDG scans in the imaging sub-study of PALETTE EORTC 62072/VEG110727: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol. 2015;I(42):848–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3002-0.CrossRef

21.

Graham MM, Badawi RD, Wahl RL. Variations in PET/CT methodology for oncologic imaging at U.S. academic medical centers: an imaging response assessment team survey. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:311–7. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.109.074104.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kobe C, Scheffler M, Holstein A, Zander T, Nogova L, Lammertsma AA, et al. Predictive value of early and late residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 18F-fluorothymidine uptake using different SUV measurements in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1117–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2118-8.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Mitigating SUV uncertainties using total body PET imaging
Authors: Charlotte L. C. Smith
Gerben J. C. Zwezerijnen
Marijke E. den Hollander
Jolijn Weijland
Maqsood Yaqub
Ronald Boellaard
Publication date: 13-11-2023
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 4/2024
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-023-06503-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Mitigating SUV uncertainties using total body PET imaging

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 4/2024

The LUTIA trial: a small step for PRRT, a giant leap for intra-arterial radionuclide therapy trial methodology

L.J. Koenig, D. Tamimi, S.E. Perschbacher, H. Demirturk. Diagnostic imaging: oral and maxillofacial. 3rd Edition

Structural modifications toward improved lead-203/lead-212 peptide-based image-guided alpha-particle radiopharmaceutical therapies for neuroendocrine tumors

Head-to-head comparison of [11C]methionine PET, [11C]choline PET, and 4-dimensional CT as second-line scans for detection of parathyroid adenomas in primary hyperparathyroidism

Correction to: Radiosynthesis and biological evaluation of [18F]AG-120 for PET imaging of the mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 in glioma

The regional pattern of age-related synaptic loss in the human brain differs from gray matter volume loss: in vivo PET measurement with [11C]UCB-J