Cargando…

Measurement of metabolic tumor volume: static versus dynamic FDG scans

BACKGROUND: Metabolic tumor volume assessment using positron-emission tomography [PET] may be of interest for both target volume definition in radiotherapy and monitoring response to therapy. It has been reported, however, that metabolic volumes derived from images of metabolic rate of glucose (gene...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cheebsumon, Patsuree, van Velden, Floris HP, Yaqub, Maqsood, Hoekstra, Corneline J, Velasquez, Linda M, Hayes, Wendy, Hoekstra, Otto S, Lammertsma, Adriaan A, Boellaard, Ronald
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3285530/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22214394
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2191-219X-1-35
_version_ 1782224481386758144
author Cheebsumon, Patsuree
van Velden, Floris HP
Yaqub, Maqsood
Hoekstra, Corneline J
Velasquez, Linda M
Hayes, Wendy
Hoekstra, Otto S
Lammertsma, Adriaan A
Boellaard, Ronald
author_facet Cheebsumon, Patsuree
van Velden, Floris HP
Yaqub, Maqsood
Hoekstra, Corneline J
Velasquez, Linda M
Hayes, Wendy
Hoekstra, Otto S
Lammertsma, Adriaan A
Boellaard, Ronald
author_sort Cheebsumon, Patsuree
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Metabolic tumor volume assessment using positron-emission tomography [PET] may be of interest for both target volume definition in radiotherapy and monitoring response to therapy. It has been reported, however, that metabolic volumes derived from images of metabolic rate of glucose (generated using Patlak analysis) are smaller than those derived from standardized uptake value [SUV] images. The purpose of this study was to systematically compare metabolic tumor volume assessments derived from SUV and Patlak images using a variety of (semi-)automatic tumor delineation methods in order to identify methods that can be used reliably on (whole body) SUV images. METHODS: Dynamic [(18)F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose [FDG] PET data from 10 lung and 8 gastrointestinal cancer patients were analyzed retrospectively. Metabolic tumor volumes were derived from both Patlak and SUV images using five different types of tumor delineation methods, based on various thresholds or on a gradient. RESULTS: In general, most tumor delineation methods provided more outliers when metabolic volumes were derived from SUV images rather than Patlak images. Only gradient-based methods showed more outliers for Patlak-based tumor delineation. Median measured metabolic volumes derived from SUV images were larger than those derived from Patlak images (up to 59% difference) when using a fixed percentage threshold method. Tumor volumes agreed reasonably well (< 26% difference) when applying methods that take local signal-to-background ratio [SBR] into account. CONCLUSION: Large differences may exist in metabolic volumes derived from static and dynamic FDG image data. These differences depend strongly on the delineation method used. Delineation methods that correct for local SBR provide the most consistent results between SUV and Patlak images.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3285530
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Springer
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32855302012-02-24 Measurement of metabolic tumor volume: static versus dynamic FDG scans Cheebsumon, Patsuree van Velden, Floris HP Yaqub, Maqsood Hoekstra, Corneline J Velasquez, Linda M Hayes, Wendy Hoekstra, Otto S Lammertsma, Adriaan A Boellaard, Ronald EJNMMI Res Original Research BACKGROUND: Metabolic tumor volume assessment using positron-emission tomography [PET] may be of interest for both target volume definition in radiotherapy and monitoring response to therapy. It has been reported, however, that metabolic volumes derived from images of metabolic rate of glucose (generated using Patlak analysis) are smaller than those derived from standardized uptake value [SUV] images. The purpose of this study was to systematically compare metabolic tumor volume assessments derived from SUV and Patlak images using a variety of (semi-)automatic tumor delineation methods in order to identify methods that can be used reliably on (whole body) SUV images. METHODS: Dynamic [(18)F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose [FDG] PET data from 10 lung and 8 gastrointestinal cancer patients were analyzed retrospectively. Metabolic tumor volumes were derived from both Patlak and SUV images using five different types of tumor delineation methods, based on various thresholds or on a gradient. RESULTS: In general, most tumor delineation methods provided more outliers when metabolic volumes were derived from SUV images rather than Patlak images. Only gradient-based methods showed more outliers for Patlak-based tumor delineation. Median measured metabolic volumes derived from SUV images were larger than those derived from Patlak images (up to 59% difference) when using a fixed percentage threshold method. Tumor volumes agreed reasonably well (< 26% difference) when applying methods that take local signal-to-background ratio [SBR] into account. CONCLUSION: Large differences may exist in metabolic volumes derived from static and dynamic FDG image data. These differences depend strongly on the delineation method used. Delineation methods that correct for local SBR provide the most consistent results between SUV and Patlak images. Springer 2011-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC3285530/ /pubmed/22214394 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2191-219X-1-35 Text en Copyright © 2011 Cheebsumon et al; licensee Springer. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Cheebsumon, Patsuree
van Velden, Floris HP
Yaqub, Maqsood
Hoekstra, Corneline J
Velasquez, Linda M
Hayes, Wendy
Hoekstra, Otto S
Lammertsma, Adriaan A
Boellaard, Ronald
Measurement of metabolic tumor volume: static versus dynamic FDG scans
title Measurement of metabolic tumor volume: static versus dynamic FDG scans
title_full Measurement of metabolic tumor volume: static versus dynamic FDG scans
title_fullStr Measurement of metabolic tumor volume: static versus dynamic FDG scans
title_full_unstemmed Measurement of metabolic tumor volume: static versus dynamic FDG scans
title_short Measurement of metabolic tumor volume: static versus dynamic FDG scans
title_sort measurement of metabolic tumor volume: static versus dynamic fdg scans
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3285530/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22214394
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2191-219X-1-35
work_keys_str_mv AT cheebsumonpatsuree measurementofmetabolictumorvolumestaticversusdynamicfdgscans
AT vanveldenflorishp measurementofmetabolictumorvolumestaticversusdynamicfdgscans
AT yaqubmaqsood measurementofmetabolictumorvolumestaticversusdynamicfdgscans
AT hoekstracornelinej measurementofmetabolictumorvolumestaticversusdynamicfdgscans
AT velasquezlindam measurementofmetabolictumorvolumestaticversusdynamicfdgscans
AT hayeswendy measurementofmetabolictumorvolumestaticversusdynamicfdgscans
AT hoekstraottos measurementofmetabolictumorvolumestaticversusdynamicfdgscans
AT lammertsmaadriaana measurementofmetabolictumorvolumestaticversusdynamicfdgscans
AT boellaardronald measurementofmetabolictumorvolumestaticversusdynamicfdgscans