Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Japanese Journal of Radiology
Published in: Japanese Journal of Radiology 8/2021

01-08-2021 | Positron Emission Tomography | Original Article

Tumor volume-adapted SUVN as an alternative to SUVpeak for quantification of small lesions in PET/CT imaging: a proof-of-concept study

Authors: Mohammad Amin Mosleh-Shirazi, Zahra Nasiri-Feshani, Pardis Ghafarian, Mehrosadat Alavi, Gholamhasan Haddadi, Ali Ketabi

Published in: Japanese Journal of Radiology | Issue 8/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

SUVpeak is a recommended quantification metric except for small lesions. We aimed to assess the averaged standard uptake value (SUVN) as an alternative to SUVpeak for small-lesion quantification.

Materials and methods

NEMA-like phantom images were reconstructed using OSEM, OSEM + PSF, OSEM + TOF and OSEM + TOF + PSF with two post-smoothing Gaussian filters for different background activity levels. SUVmax, SUVN (N = 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 or 40 hottest voxels), and SUVpeak, relative percent error, contrast recovery, and volume recovery coefficients were quantified and assessed.

Results

SUVN did not have the limitations of SUVpeak for smaller lesions. In the smallest insert at 2.68 kBq/ml, optimum N values for OSEM, OSEM + PSF, OSEM + TOF and OSEM + TOF + PSF were 10, 5, 15, and 10 for SUVN, respectively. The same N values were obtained for metabolic tumor volumes (MTVs) for all reconstruction algorithms. At 5.30 kBq/ml, N = 5 was optimum for SUVN and MTVs. For the larger inserts, the optimum N increased and tended towards the maximum (similar to SUVpeak).

Conclusions

SUVN is more accurate than SUVmax or SUVpeak for small lesions, while being as accurate in larger ones. This harmonizing capacity of SUVN can be beneficial for the quantitative analysis of small tumor volumes.
Literature
1.
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-S150.CrossRef
2.
Weber WA, Grosu AL, Czernin J. Technology Insight: advances in molecular imaging and an appraisal of PET/CT scanning. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2008;5(3):160.CrossRef
3.
Townsend DW. Dual-modality imaging: combining anatomy and function. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(6):938–55.CrossRef
4.
Boellaard R. Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(Supplement 2):93S-100S.CrossRef
5.
Boellaard R. Methodological aspects of multicenter studies with quantitative PET. Positron Emission Tomography: Springer; 2011. p. 335–49.
6.
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(2):328–54.
7.
Scheuermann JS, Saffer JR, Karp JS, Levering AM, Siegel BA. Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: the American College of Radiology Imaging Network experience. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(7):1187–93.CrossRef
8.
van der Vos CS, Koopman D, Rijnsdorp S, Arends AJ, Boellaard R, van Dalen JA, et al. Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(1):4–16.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(6):932–45.CrossRef
10.
Akamatsu G, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Tsutsui Y, Baba S, Sasaki M. Influences of point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstructions on standardized uptake value of lymph node metastases in FDG-PET. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(1):226–30.CrossRef
11.
Jakoby B, Bercier Y, Conti M, Casey M, Bendriem B, Townsend D. Physical and clinical performance of the mCT time-of-flight PET/CT scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(8):2375.CrossRef
12.
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(8):1315–23.CrossRef
13.
Prieto E, Domínguez-Prado I, García-Velloso MJ, Peñuelas I, Richter JÁ, Martí-Climent JM. Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38(2):103–9.CrossRef
14.
Akamatsu G, Ikari Y, Nishida H, Nishio T, Ohnishi A, Maebatake A, et al. Influence of statistical fluctuation on reproducibility and accuracy of SUVmax and SUVpeak: a phantom study. J Nucl Med Technol. 2015;43(3):222–6.CrossRef
15.
Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):310–20.CrossRef
16.
Kelly MD, Declerck JM. SUVref: reducing reconstruction-dependent variation in PET SUV. EJNMMI Res. 2011;1(1):16.CrossRef
17.
Sher A, Lacoeuille F, Fosse P, Vervueren L, Cahouet-Vannier A, Dabli D, et al. For avid glucose tumors, the SUV peak is the most reliable parameter for [18 F] FDG-PET/CT quantification, regardless of acquisition time. EJNMMI Res. 2016;6(1):21.CrossRef
18.
Kaalep A, Sera T, Rijnsdorp S, Yaqub M, Talsma A, Lodge MA, et al. Feasibility of state of the art PET/CT systems performance harmonisation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(8):1344–61.CrossRef
19.
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(1):4–11.CrossRef
20.
Burger IA, Huser DM, Burger C, von Schulthess GK, Buck A. Repeatability of FDG quantification in tumor imaging: averaged SUVs are superior to SUVmax. Nucl Med Biol. 2012;39(5):666–70.CrossRef
21.
Laffon E, Burger IA, Lamare F, de Clermont H, Marthan R. SUVpeak performance in lung cancer: comparison to average SUV from the 40 Hottest Voxels. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(1):85–8.CrossRef
22.
Laffon E, Lamare F, de Clermont H, Burger I, Marthan R. Variability of average SUV from several hottest voxels is lower than that of SUVmax and SUVpeak. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(8):1964–70.CrossRef
23.
Bettinardi V, Presotto L, Rapisarda E, Picchio M, Gianolli L, Gilardi M. Physical performance of the new hybrid PET/CT discovery-690. Med Phys. 2011;38(10):5394–411.CrossRef
24.
Burger IA, Huser DM, Burger C, von Schulthess GK, Buck A. Repeatability of FDG quantification in tumor imaging: averaged SUVs are superior to SUV max. Nucl Med Biol. 2012;39(5):666–70.CrossRef
25.
Munk O, Tolbod L, Hansen S, Bogsrud T. Point-spread function reconstructed PET images of sub-centimeter lesions are not quantitative. EJNMMI Phys. 2017;4(1):1–12.CrossRef
26.
Sheikhbahaei S, Marcus C, Wray R, Rahmim A, Lodge MA, Subramaniam RM. Impact of point spread function reconstruction on quantitative 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging parameters and inter-reader reproducibility in solid tumors. Nucl Med Commun. 2016;37(3):288–96.CrossRef
27.
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(11):1716–22.CrossRef
28.
Sadick M, Molina F, Frey S, Piniol R, Sadick H, Brade J, et al. Effect of reconstruction parameters in high-definition PET/CT on assessment of lymph node metastases in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Nucl Med Technol. 2013;41(1):19–25.CrossRef
29.
Ketabi A, Ghafarian P, Mosleh-Shirazi MA, Mahdavi SR, Rahmim A, Ay MR. Impact of image reconstruction methods on quantitative accuracy and variability of FDG-PET volumetric and textural measures in solid tumors. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(4):2146–56.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Tumor volume-adapted SUVN as an alternative to SUVpeak for quantification of small lesions in PET/CT imaging: a proof-of-concept study
Authors
Mohammad Amin Mosleh-Shirazi
Zahra Nasiri-Feshani
Pardis Ghafarian
Mehrosadat Alavi
Gholamhasan Haddadi
Ali Ketabi
Publication date
01-08-2021
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Japanese Journal of Radiology / Issue 8/2021
Print ISSN: 1867-1071
Electronic ISSN: 1867-108X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-021-01112-w

Other articles of this Issue 8/2021

Japanese Journal of Radiology 8/2021 Go to the issue

Invited Review

Ground-glass opacity (GGO): a review of the differential diagnosis in the era of COVID-19

Original Article

The utility of dynamic MRI in differentiating the hormone-producing ability of pituitary adenomas

Original Article

The correlation between hepatic fat fraction evaluated by dual-energy computed tomography and high-risk coronary plaques in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Original Article

Investigation of MRI-based radiomics model in differentiation between sinonasal primary lymphomas and squamous cell carcinomas

Original Article

An analysis of the radiological factors associated with respiratory failure in COVID-19 pneumonia and the CT features among different age categories

Original Article

MRI of the intraorbital ocular motor nerves on three-dimensional double-echo steady state with water excitation sequence at 3.0 T