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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |