Top

Published in:

01-09-2017 | Review

What Do We Measure in Oncology PET?

Authors: Kyoungjune Pak, Seong-Jang Kim

Published in: Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 3/2017

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) has come to the practice of oncology. It is known that ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET is more sensitive for the assessment of treatment response than conventional imaging. In addition, PET has an advantage in the use of quantitative analysis of the study. Nowadays, various PET parameters are adopted in clinical settings. In addition, a wide range of factors has been known to be associated with FDG uptake. Therefore, there has been a need for standardization and harmonization of protocols and PET parameters. We will introduce PET parameters and discuss major issues in this review.

Frey EC, Humm JL, Ljungberg M. Accuracy and precision of radioactivity quantification in nuclear medicine images. Semin Nucl Med. 2012;42(3):208–18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Doot RK, McDonald ES, Mankoff DA. Role of PET quantitation in the monitoring of cancer response to treatment: review of approaches and human clinical trials. Clin Transl Imaging. 2014;2(4):295–303.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):310–20.CrossRefPubMed

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(13):1773–82.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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

RSNA RSoNA. Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance™. 2015. https://rsna.org/QIBA/. Accessed 17 November 2015.

Graham MM, Wahl RL, Hoffman JM, Yap JT, Sunderland JJ, Boellaard R, et al. Summary of the UPICT protocol for 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in oncology clinical trials. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(6):955–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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.CrossRefPubMed

Lucignani G. SUV and segmentation: pressing challenges in tumour assessment and treatment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36(4):715–20.CrossRefPubMed

10.

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

11.

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Pak K, Cheon GJ, Nam HY, Kim SJ, Kang KW, Chung JK, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(6):884–90.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Rahim MK, Kim SE, So H, Kim HJ, Cheon GJ, Lee ES, et al. Recent trends in PET image interpretations using volumetric and texture-based quantification methods in nuclear oncology. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;48(1):1–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Daisne JF, Duprez T, Weynand B, Lonneux M, Hamoir M, Reychler H, et al. Tumor volume in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: comparison at CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET and validation with surgical specimen. Radiology. 2004;233(1):93–100.CrossRefPubMed

15.

de Jong PA, van Ufford HM, Baarslag HJ, de Haas MJ, Wittebol SH, Quekel LG, et al. CT and 18F-FDG PET for noninvasive detection of splenic involvement in patients with malignant lymphoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(3):745–53.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Zheng Y, Syh J, Yao M, Wessels B. An automatic method for PET target segmentation using a lookup table based on volume and concentration ratio. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2010;9(3):243–52.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Arens AI, Troost EG, Hoeben BA, Grootjans W, Lee JA, Gregoire V, et al. Semiautomatic methods for segmentation of the proliferative tumour volume on sequential FLT PET/CT images in head and neck carcinomas and their relation to clinical outcome. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(5):915–24.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Schaefer A, Kim YJ, Kremp S, Mai S, Fleckenstein J, Bohnenberger H, et al. PET-based delineation of tumour volumes in lung cancer: comparison with pathological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(8):1233–44.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Ott K, Fink U, Becker K, Stahl A, Dittler HJ, Busch R, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in gastric carcinoma by metabolic imaging: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(24):4604–10.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Paquet N, Albert A, Foidart J, Hustinx R. Within-patient variability of (18)F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(5):784–8.PubMed

21.

van den Hoff J, Oehme L, Schramm G, Maus J, Lougovski A, Petr J, et al. The PET-derived tumor-to-blood standard uptake ratio (SUR) is superior to tumor SUV as a surrogate parameter of the metabolic rate of FDG. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3(1):77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Mawlawi O, Erasmus JJ, Munden RF, Pan T, Knight AE, Macapinlac HA, et al. Quantifying the effect of IV contrast media on integrated PET/CT: clinical evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(2):308–19.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Jacene HA, Leboulleux S, Baba S, Chatzifotiadis D, Goudarzi B, Teytelbaum O, et al. Assessment of interobserver reproducibility in quantitative 18F-FDG PET and CT measurements of tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(11):1760–9.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, Wahl RL. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. Radiology. 1999;213(2):521–5.CrossRefPubMed

25.

James WPT. Research on obesity1976. Report No.: 0-11-4500347.

26.

Boer P. Estimated lean body mass as an index for normalization of body fluid volumes in humans. Am J Physiol. 1984;247(4 Pt 2):F632–6.PubMed

27.

Hume R. Prediction of lean body mass from height and weight. J Clin Pathol. 1966;19(4):389–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Wang Y, Moss J, Thisted R. Predictors of body surface area. J Clin Anesth. 1992;4(1):4–10.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Mosteller RD. Simplified calculation of body-surface area. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(17):1098.PubMed

30.

Haycock GB, Schwartz GJ, Wisotsky DH. Geometric method for measuring body surface area: a height-weight formula validated in infants, children, and adults. J Pediatr. 1978;93(1):62–6.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Assen S. Kirov LMF. Pathology-validated PET image data sets and their role in PET segmentation. Clin Translational Imaging.2(3):253-67.

32.

Hatt M, Cheze-le Rest C, van Baardwijk A, Lambin P, Pradier O, Visvikis D. Impact of tumor size and tracer uptake heterogeneity in (18)F-FDG PET and CT non-small cell lung cancer tumor delineation. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(11):1690–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Yu J, Li X, Xing L, Mu D, Fu Z, Sun X, et al. Comparison of tumor volumes as determined by pathologic examination and FDG-PET/CT images of non-small-cell lung cancer: a pilot study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75(5):1468–74.CrossRefPubMed

34.

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(7):1038–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: What Do We Measure in Oncology PET?
Authors: Kyoungjune Pak
Seong-Jang Kim
Publication date: 01-09-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1869-3474
Electronic ISSN: 1869-3482
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-016-0416-y

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

What Do We Measure in Oncology PET?

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging of Pulmonary Mucinous Cystadenocarcinoma with Signet Ring Cells

Bilateral Renal Metastasis of Hürthle Cell Thyroid Cancer with Discordant Uptake Between I-131 Sodium Iodide and F-18 FDG

Message from the Editor-in-Chief

68Gallium-Arginine-Glycine-Aspartic Acid and 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Chondroblastic Osteosarcoma of the Skull

Prognostic Value of Tumor-to-Blood Standardized Uptake Ratio in Patients with Resectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Clinical Significance of Incidental Focal 18F-FDG Uptake in the Spinal Cord of Patients with Cancer