[en] The aim of this study was to evaluate the test-retest variability of standardized uptake values (SUVs) in normal tissues and the impact of various methods for measuring the SUV. Methods: SUVs were determined in 70 cancer-free patients (40 female and 30 male) on 2 occasions an average of 271 d apart. Mean values for body weight and height, blood glucose level, injected dose, and uptake period did not change between the 2 groups of studies. Four regions of interest (ROIs) were placed-on the liver, lung, mediastinum, and trapezius muscle. Mean and maximum SUVs normalized for body weight were obtained, and normalizations were then applied for lean body mass (LBM), LBM and blood glucose level, body surface area (BSA), and BSA and blood glucose level. Results: In the lungs and muscle, metabolic activity within the ROIs was significantly different in the 2 studies, no matter which method was used for the SUVs. The differences ranged from 0.02 to 0.1 for SUV normalized for body weight and SUV normalized for LBM and from 0.001 to 0.002 for SUV normalized for BSA. In the liver, results were similar for all SUVs, except for maximum SUV corrected for LBM and maximum SUV corrected for LBM and blood glucose level. The metabolic activity measured in the mediastinum was also comparable in the 2 studies, regardless of the type of SUV. When investigating whether any normalization method for SUVs reduces variability and improves test-retest concordance, we found no significant superiority for any. The best intraclass correlation coefficients were obtained with the SUV normalized for body weight, in both the liver and the mediastinum, but the coefficients of variation were similar for all 3 mean SUVs that were not corrected for glucose level (range, 10.8%-13.4%). However, normalizing for blood glucose level increased the variability and decreased the level of concordance between studies. Conclusion: The SUVs measured in normal liver and mediastinum in cancer-free patients are stable over time, no matter which normalization is used. Correcting for blood glucose level increases the variability of the values and should therefore be avoided. Normalizing for BSA or LBM does not improve the reproducibility of the measurements.
Disciplines :
Radiology, nuclear medicine & imaging
Author, co-author :
Paquet, Nancy
Albert, Adelin ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Informatique médicale et biostatistique
Willems, Jacqueline ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Médecine nucléaire
Hustinx, Roland ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques > Médecine nucléaire
Language :
English
Title :
Within-patient variability of F-18-FDG: Standardized uptake values in normal tissues
Publication date :
May 2004
Journal title :
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
ISSN :
0161-5505
eISSN :
1535-5667
Publisher :
Soc Nuclear Medicine Inc, Reston, United States - Virginia
Keyes JW Jr. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1836-1839.
Huang S-C. Anatomy of SUV. Nucl Med Biol. 2000;27:643-646.
Lee JR, Madsen MT, Bushnel D, Menda Y. A threshold method to improve standardized uptake value reproducibility. Nucl Med Com. 2000;21:685-690.
Ramos CD, Erdi YE, Gonen M, et al. 18F-FDG PET standardized uptake values in normal anatomical structures using iterative reconstruction segmented attenuation correction and filtered back-projection. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:155-164.
Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773-1782.
Adam LE, Karp JS, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Smith RJ. Performance of a whole-body PET scanner using curve-plate NaI(T1) detectors. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1821-1833.
Morgan DJ, Bray KM. Lean body mass as a predictor of drug dosage: implications for drug therapy. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1994;26:292-307.
Du Bois D, Du Bois EF. A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. Arch Intern Med 1916:863-871.
Menda Y, Bushnell DL, Madsen MT, et al. Evaluation of various corrections to the standardized uptake value for diagnosis of pulmonary malignancy. Nucl Med Com. 2001;22:1077-1981.
Minn H, Zasadny KR, Quint LE, Wahl RL. Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-dexoy-D- glucose uptake at PET. Radiology. 1995;196:167-173.
Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-dexoy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology. 1993;189:847-850.
Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Stroobants SG, et al. Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1304-1309.
Graham MM, Peterson LM, Hayward RM. Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of 18F-FDG uptake. Nucl Med Biol. 2000;27:647-655.
Kim CK, Gupta NC, Chandramouli B, Alavi A. Standardized uptake values of FDG: body surface area correction is preferable to body weight correction. J Nucl Med. 1994;35:164-167.
Schomburg A, Bender H, Reichel C, et al. Standardized uptake values of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: the value of different normalization procedures. Eur J Nucl Med. 1996;23:571-574.
Yeung HW, Sanches A, Squire OD, Macapinlac HA, Larson SM, Erdi YE. Standardized uptake value in pediatric patients: an investigation to determine the optimum measurement parameter. Eur J Nucl Med. 2002;29:61-66.