Cargando…

Reproducibility of Standardized Uptake Values Including Volume Metrics Between TOF-PET-MR and TOF-PET-CT

PURPOSE: To investigate the reproducibility of tracer uptake measurements, including volume metrics, such as metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and tumor lesion glycolysis (TLG) obtained by TOF-PET-CT and TOF-PET-MR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients with different oncologic diagnoses und...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tanaka, Aruki, Sekine, Tetsuro, ter Voert, Edwin E. G. W., Zeimpekis, Konstantinos G., Delso, Gaspar, de Galiza Barbosa, Felipe, Warnock, Geoffrey, Kumita, Shin-ichiro, Veit Haibach, Patrick, Huellner, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8924656/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35308500
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.796085
_version_ 1784669907190808576
author Tanaka, Aruki
Sekine, Tetsuro
ter Voert, Edwin E. G. W.
Zeimpekis, Konstantinos G.
Delso, Gaspar
de Galiza Barbosa, Felipe
Warnock, Geoffrey
Kumita, Shin-ichiro
Veit Haibach, Patrick
Huellner, Martin
author_facet Tanaka, Aruki
Sekine, Tetsuro
ter Voert, Edwin E. G. W.
Zeimpekis, Konstantinos G.
Delso, Gaspar
de Galiza Barbosa, Felipe
Warnock, Geoffrey
Kumita, Shin-ichiro
Veit Haibach, Patrick
Huellner, Martin
author_sort Tanaka, Aruki
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To investigate the reproducibility of tracer uptake measurements, including volume metrics, such as metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and tumor lesion glycolysis (TLG) obtained by TOF-PET-CT and TOF-PET-MR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients with different oncologic diagnoses underwent TOF-PET-CT (Discovery 690; GE Healthcare) and TOF-PET-MR (SIGNA PET-MR; GE Healthcare) on the same day with single dose−18F-FDG injection. The scan order, PET-CT following or followed by PET-MR, was randomly assigned. A spherical volume of interest (VOI) of 30 mm was placed on the liver in accordance with the PERCIST criteria. For liver, the maximum and mean standard uptake value for body weight (SUV) and lean body mass (SUL) were obtained. For tumor delineation, VOI with a threshold of 40 and 50% of SUVmax was used (VOI40 and VOI50). The SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, MTV and TLG were calculated. The measurements were compared between the two scanners. RESULTS: In total, 80 tumor lesions from 35 patients were evaluated. There was no statistical difference observed in liver regions, whereas in tumor lesions, SUVmax, SUV mean, and SUVpeak of PET-MR were significantly underestimated (p < 0.001) in both VOI40 and VOI50. Among volume metrics, there was no statistical difference observed except TLG on VOI50 (p = 0.03). Correlation between PET-CT and PET-MR of each metrics were calculated. There was a moderate correlation of the liver SUV and SUL metrics (r = 0.63–0.78). In tumor lesions, SUVmax and SUVmean had a stronger correlation with underestimation in PET-MR on VOI 40 (SUVmax and SUVmean; r = 0.92 and 0.91 with slope = 0.71 and 0.72, respectively). In the evaluation of MTV and TLG, the stronger correlations were observed both on VOI40 (MTV and TLG; r = 0.75 and 0.92) and VOI50 (MTV and TLG; r = 0.88 and 0.95) between PET-CT and PET-MR. CONCLUSION: PET metrics on TOF-PET-MR showed a good correlation with that of TOF-PET-CT. SUVmax and SUVpeak of tumor lesions were underestimated by 16% on PET-MRI. MTV with % threshold can be regarded as identical volumetric markers for both TOF-PET-CT and TOF-PET-MR.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8924656
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89246562022-03-17 Reproducibility of Standardized Uptake Values Including Volume Metrics Between TOF-PET-MR and TOF-PET-CT Tanaka, Aruki Sekine, Tetsuro ter Voert, Edwin E. G. W. Zeimpekis, Konstantinos G. Delso, Gaspar de Galiza Barbosa, Felipe Warnock, Geoffrey Kumita, Shin-ichiro Veit Haibach, Patrick Huellner, Martin Front Med (Lausanne) Medicine PURPOSE: To investigate the reproducibility of tracer uptake measurements, including volume metrics, such as metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and tumor lesion glycolysis (TLG) obtained by TOF-PET-CT and TOF-PET-MR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients with different oncologic diagnoses underwent TOF-PET-CT (Discovery 690; GE Healthcare) and TOF-PET-MR (SIGNA PET-MR; GE Healthcare) on the same day with single dose−18F-FDG injection. The scan order, PET-CT following or followed by PET-MR, was randomly assigned. A spherical volume of interest (VOI) of 30 mm was placed on the liver in accordance with the PERCIST criteria. For liver, the maximum and mean standard uptake value for body weight (SUV) and lean body mass (SUL) were obtained. For tumor delineation, VOI with a threshold of 40 and 50% of SUVmax was used (VOI40 and VOI50). The SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, MTV and TLG were calculated. The measurements were compared between the two scanners. RESULTS: In total, 80 tumor lesions from 35 patients were evaluated. There was no statistical difference observed in liver regions, whereas in tumor lesions, SUVmax, SUV mean, and SUVpeak of PET-MR were significantly underestimated (p < 0.001) in both VOI40 and VOI50. Among volume metrics, there was no statistical difference observed except TLG on VOI50 (p = 0.03). Correlation between PET-CT and PET-MR of each metrics were calculated. There was a moderate correlation of the liver SUV and SUL metrics (r = 0.63–0.78). In tumor lesions, SUVmax and SUVmean had a stronger correlation with underestimation in PET-MR on VOI 40 (SUVmax and SUVmean; r = 0.92 and 0.91 with slope = 0.71 and 0.72, respectively). In the evaluation of MTV and TLG, the stronger correlations were observed both on VOI40 (MTV and TLG; r = 0.75 and 0.92) and VOI50 (MTV and TLG; r = 0.88 and 0.95) between PET-CT and PET-MR. CONCLUSION: PET metrics on TOF-PET-MR showed a good correlation with that of TOF-PET-CT. SUVmax and SUVpeak of tumor lesions were underestimated by 16% on PET-MRI. MTV with % threshold can be regarded as identical volumetric markers for both TOF-PET-CT and TOF-PET-MR. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8924656/ /pubmed/35308500 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.796085 Text en Copyright © 2022 Tanaka, Sekine, ter Voert, Zeimpekis, Delso, de Galiza Barbosa, Warnock, Kumita, Veit Haibach and Huellner. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Medicine
Tanaka, Aruki
Sekine, Tetsuro
ter Voert, Edwin E. G. W.
Zeimpekis, Konstantinos G.
Delso, Gaspar
de Galiza Barbosa, Felipe
Warnock, Geoffrey
Kumita, Shin-ichiro
Veit Haibach, Patrick
Huellner, Martin
Reproducibility of Standardized Uptake Values Including Volume Metrics Between TOF-PET-MR and TOF-PET-CT
title Reproducibility of Standardized Uptake Values Including Volume Metrics Between TOF-PET-MR and TOF-PET-CT
title_full Reproducibility of Standardized Uptake Values Including Volume Metrics Between TOF-PET-MR and TOF-PET-CT
title_fullStr Reproducibility of Standardized Uptake Values Including Volume Metrics Between TOF-PET-MR and TOF-PET-CT
title_full_unstemmed Reproducibility of Standardized Uptake Values Including Volume Metrics Between TOF-PET-MR and TOF-PET-CT
title_short Reproducibility of Standardized Uptake Values Including Volume Metrics Between TOF-PET-MR and TOF-PET-CT
title_sort reproducibility of standardized uptake values including volume metrics between tof-pet-mr and tof-pet-ct
topic Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8924656/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35308500
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.796085
work_keys_str_mv AT tanakaaruki reproducibilityofstandardizeduptakevaluesincludingvolumemetricsbetweentofpetmrandtofpetct
AT sekinetetsuro reproducibilityofstandardizeduptakevaluesincludingvolumemetricsbetweentofpetmrandtofpetct
AT tervoertedwinegw reproducibilityofstandardizeduptakevaluesincludingvolumemetricsbetweentofpetmrandtofpetct
AT zeimpekiskonstantinosg reproducibilityofstandardizeduptakevaluesincludingvolumemetricsbetweentofpetmrandtofpetct
AT delsogaspar reproducibilityofstandardizeduptakevaluesincludingvolumemetricsbetweentofpetmrandtofpetct
AT degalizabarbosafelipe reproducibilityofstandardizeduptakevaluesincludingvolumemetricsbetweentofpetmrandtofpetct
AT warnockgeoffrey reproducibilityofstandardizeduptakevaluesincludingvolumemetricsbetweentofpetmrandtofpetct
AT kumitashinichiro reproducibilityofstandardizeduptakevaluesincludingvolumemetricsbetweentofpetmrandtofpetct
AT veithaibachpatrick reproducibilityofstandardizeduptakevaluesincludingvolumemetricsbetweentofpetmrandtofpetct
AT huellnermartin reproducibilityofstandardizeduptakevaluesincludingvolumemetricsbetweentofpetmrandtofpetct