Blog
About

21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Tumor Quantification in Clinical Positron Emission Tomography

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Positron emission tomography (PET) is used extensively in clinical oncology for tumor detection, staging and therapy response assessment. Quantitative measurements of tumor uptake, usually in the form of standardized uptake values (SUVs), have enhanced or replaced qualitative interpretation. In this paper we review the current status of tumor quantification methods and their applications to clinical oncology. Factors that impede quantitative assessment and limit its accuracy and reproducibility are summarized, with special emphasis on SUV analysis. We describe current efforts to improve the accuracy of tumor uptake measurements, characterize overall metabolic tumor burden and heterogeneity of tumor uptake, and account for the effects of image noise. We also summarize recent developments in PET instrumentation and image reconstruction and their impact on tumor quantification. Finally, we offer our assessment of the current development needs in PET tumor quantification, including practical techniques for fully quantitative, pharmacokinetic measurements.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 87

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer.

          (18)F-FDG PET is often used in clinical routine for diagnosis, staging, and response to therapy assessment or prediction. The standardized uptake value (SUV) in the primary or regional area is the most common quantitative measurement derived from PET images used for those purposes. The aim of this study was to propose and evaluate new parameters obtained by textural analysis of baseline PET scans for the prediction of therapy response in esophageal cancer. Forty-one patients with newly diagnosed esophageal cancer treated with combined radiochemotherapy were included in this study. All patients underwent pretreatment whole-body (18)F-FDG PET. Patients were treated with radiotherapy and alkylatinlike agents (5-fluorouracil-cisplatin or 5-fluorouracil-carboplatin). Patients were classified as nonresponders (progressive or stable disease), partial responders, or complete responders according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Different image-derived indices obtained from the pretreatment PET tumor images were considered. These included usual indices such as maximum SUV, peak SUV, and mean SUV and a total of 38 features (such as entropy, size, and magnitude of local and global heterogeneous and homogeneous tumor regions) extracted from the 5 different textures considered. The capacity of each parameter to classify patients with respect to response to therapy was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P < 0.05). Specificity and sensitivity (including 95% confidence intervals) for each of the studied parameters were derived using receiver-operating-characteristic curves. Relationships between pairs of voxels, characterizing local tumor metabolic nonuniformities, were able to significantly differentiate all 3 patient groups (P < 0.0006). Regional measures of tumor characteristics, such as size of nonuniform metabolic regions and corresponding intensity nonuniformities within these regions, were also significant factors for prediction of response to therapy (P = 0.0002). Receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis showed that tumor textural analysis can provide nonresponder, partial-responder, and complete-responder patient identification with higher sensitivity (76%-92%) than any SUV measurement. Textural features of tumor metabolic distribution extracted from baseline (18)F-FDG PET images allow for the best stratification of esophageal carcinoma patients in the context of therapy-response prediction.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma.

            To develop guidelines for performing and interpreting positron emission tomography (PET) imaging for treatment assessment in patients with lymphoma both in clinical practice and in clinical trials. An International Harmonization Project (IHP) was convened to discuss standardization of clinical trial parameters in lymphoma. An imaging subcommittee developed consensus recommendations based on published PET literature and the collective expertise of its members in the use of PET in lymphoma. Only recommendations subsequently endorsed by all IHP subcommittees were adopted. PET after completion of therapy should be performed at least 3 weeks, and preferably at 6 to 8 weeks, after chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy, and 8 to 12 weeks after radiation or chemoradiotherapy. Visual assessment alone is adequate for interpreting PET findings as positive or negative when assessing response after completion of therapy. Mediastinal blood pool activity is recommended as the reference background activity to define PET positivity for a residual mass > or = 2 cm in greatest transverse diameter, regardless of its location. A smaller residual mass or a normal sized lymph node (ie, < or = 1 x 1 cm in diameter) should be considered positive if its activity is above that of the surrounding background. Specific criteria for defining PET positivity in the liver, spleen, lung, and bone marrow are also proposed. Use of attenuation-corrected PET is strongly encouraged. Use of PET for treatment monitoring during a course of therapy should only be done in a clinical trial or as part of a prospective registry.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study.

              Semiquantitative standard uptake values (SUVs) are used for tumor diagnosis and response monitoring. However, the accuracy of the SUV and the accuracy of relative change during treatment are not well documented. Therefore, an experimental and simulation study was performed to determine the effects of noise, image resolution, and region-of-interest (ROI) definition on the accuracy of SUVs. Experiments and simulations are based on thorax phantoms with tumors of 10-, 15-, 20-, and 30-mm diameter and background ratios (TBRs) of 2, 4, and 8. For the simulation study, sinograms were generated by forward projection of the phantoms. For each phantom, 50 sinograms were generated at 3 noise levels. All sinograms were reconstructed using ordered-subset expectation maximization (OSEM) with 2 iterations and 16 subsets, with or without a 6-mm gaussian filter. For each tumor, the maximum pixel value and the average of a 50%, a 70%, and an adaptive isocontour threshold ROI were derived as well as with an ROI of 15 x 15 mm. The accuracy of SUVs was assessed using the average of 50 ROI values. Treatment response was simulated by varying the tumor size or the TBR. For all situations, a strong correlation was found between maximum and isocontour-based ROI values resulting in similar dependencies on image resolution and noise of all studied SUV measures. A strong variation with tumor size of > or =50% was found for all SUV values. For nonsmoothed data with high noise levels this variation was primarily due to noise, whereas for smoothed data with low noise levels partial-volume effects were most important. In general, SUVs showed under- and overestimations of > or =50% and depended on all parameters studied. However, SUV ratios, used for response monitoring, were only slightly dependent of ROI definition but were still affected by noise and resolution. The poor accuracy of the SUV under various conditions may hamper its use for diagnosis, especially in multicenter trials. SUV ratios used to measure response to treatment, however, are less dependent on noise, image resolution, and ROI definition. Therefore, the SUV might be more suitable for response-monitoring purposes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Theranostics
                Theranostics
                thno
                Theranostics
                Ivyspring International Publisher (Sydney )
                1838-7640
                2013
                7 October 2013
                : 3
                : 10
                : 787-801
                Affiliations
                1. Department of Radiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA;
                2. Department of Cancer Immunotherapy and Tumor Immunology, City of Hope, Duarte, CA.
                Author notes
                ✉ Corresponding author: Peter S Conti, MD, PhD. Department of Radiology, University of Southern California, 2250 Alcazar Street, CSC/IGM 103, Los Angeles, CA 90033. Phone: 323 442 5940 Fax: 323 442 3253 Email: pconti@ 123456usc.edu .

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.

                Article
                thnov03p0787
                10.7150/thno.5629
                3840412
                24312151
                © Ivyspring International Publisher. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Reproduction is permitted for personal, noncommercial use, provided that the article is in whole, unmodified, and properly cited.
                Categories
                Review

                Molecular medicine

                tumor quantification, positron emission tomography

                Comments

                Comment on this article