Abstract
Objectives
To assess variability of the average standard uptake value (SUV) computed by varying the number of hottest voxels within an 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG)-positive lesion. This SUV metric was compared with the maximal SUV (SUVmax: the hottest voxel) and peak SUV (SUVpeak: SUVmax and its 26 neighbouring voxels).
Methods
Twelve lung cancer patients (20 lesions) were analysed using PET dynamic acquisition involving ten successive 2.5-min frames. In each frame and lesion, average SUV obtained from the N = 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30 hottest voxels (SUVmax–N ), SUVmax and SUVpeak were assessed. The relative standard deviations (SDrs) from ten frames were calculated for each SUV metric and lesion, yielding the mean relative SD from 20 lesions for each SUV metric (SDr N , SDrmax and SDrpeak), and hence relative measurement error and repeatability (MEr–R).
Results
For each N, SDr N was significantly lower than SDrmax and SDrpeak. SDr N correlated strongly with N: 6.471 × N -0.103 (r = 0.994; P < 0.01). MEr–R of SUVmax-30 was 8.94–12.63 % (95 % CL), versus 13.86–19.59 % and 13.41–18.95 % for SUVmax and SUVpeak respectively.
Conclusions
Variability of SUVmax–N is significantly lower than for SUVmax and SUVpeak. Further prospective studies should be performed to determine the optimal total hottest volume, as voxel volume may depend on the PET system.
Key Points
• PET imaging provides functional parameters of 18 F-FDG-positive lesions, such as SUVmax and SUVpeak.
• Averaging SUV from several hottest voxels (SUVmax- N ) is a further SUV metric.
• Variability of SUVmax– N is significantly lower than SUVmax and SUVpeak variability.
• SUVmax– N should improve SUV accuracy for predicting outcome or assessing treatment response.
• An optimal total hottest volume should be determined through further prospective studies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- MEr:
-
relative measurement error
- MEr–R:
-
relative measurement error and repeatability
- SDr:
-
relative standard deviation
- R:
-
repeatability
- TV:
-
tumour volume
References
Visvikis D, Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze-Le Rest D (2012) The age of reason for FDG PET image-derived indices. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:1670–1672
Boellaard R (2009) Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 50:11S–20S
Wahl RL, Zasadny K, Helvie M, Hutchins GD, Weber B, Cody R (1993) Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol 11:2101–2111
Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumours. J Nucl Med 50:122S–150S
Visser EP, Boerman OC, Oyen WJG (2010) SUV: from silly useless value to smart uptake value. J Nucl Med 51:173–175
Tylski P, Stute S, Grotus N et al (2010) Comparative assessment of methods for estimating tumor volume and standardized uptake value in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 51:268–276
Vanderhoek M, Perlman SB, Jeraj R (2012) Impact of the definition of peak standardized uptake value on quantification of treatment response. J Nucl Med 53:4–11
Burger IA, Huser DM, Burger C, von Schulthess GK, Buck A (2012) Repeatability of FDG quantification in tumor imaging: averaged SUVs are superior to SUVmax. Nucl Med Biol 39:666–670
Hatt M, Visvikis D, Albarghach NM, Tixier F, Pradier O, Cheze-Le Rest D (2011) Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET image-based parameters in oesophageal cancer and impact of tumour delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:1191–1202
Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I (2007) Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med 48:932–945
Bland JM, Altman DG (1996) Statistics notes: measurement error proportional to the mean. BMJ 313:106–108
Bland JM, Altman DG (1996) Statistics notes: measurement error. BMJ 313:744–746
Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA et al (2010) FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:181–200
Tixier F, Hatt M, Le Rest CC, Le Pogam A, Corcos L, Visvikis D (2012) Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 53:693–700
Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze Le Rest C, Pradier O, Visvikis D (2013) Robustness of intratumour F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:1662–1671
Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T et al (1999) Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging 2:159–171
Chen HH, Chiu NT, Su WC, Guo HR, Lee BF (2012) Prognostic value of whole-body total lesion glycolysis at pretreatment FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology 264:559–566
Soussan M, Chouahnia K, Maisonobe J-A et al (2013) Prognostic implications of volume-based measurements on FDG PET/CT in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer after induction chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:668–676
Scheffler M, Zander T, Nogova L et al (2013) Prognostic impact of [18F]fluorothymidine and [18F]fluoro-D-glucose baseline uptakes in patients with lung cancer treated first-line with erlotinib. PLoS ONE 8:e53081
Laffon E, de Clermont H, Lamare F, Marthan R (2013) Variability of total lesion glycolysis by 18FDG-positive tissue thresholding in lung cancer. J Nucl Med Technol 41:186–191
Lambin P, Roelofs E, Reymen B et al (2013) Rapid learning health care in oncology—an approach towards decision support systems enabling customised radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 109:159–164
Ambrosini V, Nicolini S, Caroli P (2012) PET/CT imaging in different types of lung cancer: an overview. Eur J Radiol 81:988–1001
Laffon E, de Clermont H, Marthan R (2013) Variability of (18)F-FDG-positive lung lesion volume by thresholding. Eur Radiol 23:1131–1137
Boellaard R (2011) Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med 52:93S–100S
de Langen AJ, Vincent A, Velasquez LM et al (2012) Repeatability of 18F-FDG uptake measurements in tumors: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Med 53:701–708
Acknowledgements
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Roger Marthan. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in references 20 and 23 of the revised paper.
Methodology: retrospective, as PET images had already been acquired [20, 23], diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at one institution.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Laffon, E., Lamare, F., de Clermont, H. et al. Variability of average SUV from several hottest voxels is lower than that of SUVmax and SUVpeak. Eur Radiol 24, 1964–1970 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3222-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3222-x