Quantitative Evaluation of FDG PET Imaging

Abstract

Positron emission tomography / computed tomography has an increasing use for diagnosis, staging, prognosis and response to treatment in oncological cases. The major advantage of PET is the ability to measure radiopharmaceutical uptake and it gives digital results in the form of standardized uptake value (SUV) . Semi-quantitative measurements (SUV) obtained from 18F-FDG PET / CT findings are the most important parameters in distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions. SUV measurement differences change the clinical efficacy of PET-based measurement, a semi-quantitative imaging biomarker for treatment response and treatment planning in oncologic patients.

Keywords

• Positron emission tomography
• computed tomography
• standardized uptake value

FDG PET Görüntülemelerin Kantitatif Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Pozitron emisyon tomografi/ bilgisayarlı tomografi onkolojik vakalarda tanı, evreleme, prognoz ve tedaviye yanıt için giderek artan kullanım alanına sahiptir. PET’in en büyük avantajı radyofarmasötik uptake’ini ölçebilmek ve en çok kullanılan parametre olan standardize uptake değeri (SUV) şeklinde sayısal sonuç vermesidir. SUV hesaplamaları rekonstrükte edilmiş PET ve BT görüntülerinden elde edilir. 18F-FDG PET/BT bulgularından elde edilen semikantitatif ölçümler (SUV) benign-malign lezyon ayırımında en önemli parametrelerdir. SUV ölçüm farklılıkları, onkolojik hastalarda tedavi yanıtı ve tedavi planlaması için yarı kantitatif bir görüntüleme biyobelirteci olan PET tabanlı ölçümün klinik etkinliğini değiştirir.

Keywords

• PET/BT
• malignite
• SUV

References

1. Referans1 Parlak Y, Gümüşer G, Bilgin E, F-18 FDG PET/BT görüntüleme artefaktları, Türk Onkoloji Dergisi, 2015, 30(3), 166-171
2. Referans2 Kelloff GJ, Hoffman JM, Johnson B, Progress and promise of FDG-PET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development, Clin Cancer Res, 2005, 11, 2785–2808
3. Referans3 Weber WA, Wieder H, Monitoring chemotherapy and radiotherapy of solid tumors, Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2006, 33, 27–37
4. Referans4 M. C. Adams, TG, Turkington, JM. Wilson, TZ. Wong, A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements, American Journal of Roentgenology, 195(2), 310–320
5. Referans5 Boellaard R, Wim J. G. Oyen, Corneline J. Hoekstra, Otto S. Hoekstra, Eric P. Visser, Antoon T. Willemsen, The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials, Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2008, 35, 2320–2333
6. Referans6 Parlak Y, Göksoy D, Mütevelizade G, Gümüşer G, Bilgin E, Baseline SUV Range for Liver and Blood Pool in Patients Undergoing F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography, İstanbul Med J, 2019, 20(5), 431-5
7. Referans7 Thie JA, Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage, J Nucl Med, 2004, 45, 1431-1434
8. Referans8 Wahl R, PET ve PET/BT Prensipler ve Uygulamalar, 2011, 2. Baskı

9. Referans9 Love C, Tomas M, Gene G. Tronco, Christopher J. Palestro, FDG PET of Infection and Inflammation RadioGraphics, 2005, 25, 1357–1368
10. Referans10 Keyes JW. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med, 1995, 36, 1836–1839
11. Referans11 Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. American Journal of Roentgenology, 2010, 195(2), 310–320
12. Referans12 Eskian M, Alavi A, Khorasanizadehl M, Effect of blood glucose level on standardized uptake value (SUV) in 18F- FDG PET-scan: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 20,807 individual SUV measurements, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2019, 46, 224–237
13. Referans13 Rahmana WT, Walea D, Vigliantia B, Townsendc D The impact of infection and inflammation in oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging, Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 2019, 117, 109-168
14. Referans14 Kinahan PE, Fletcher JW, PET/CT standardized uptake values (SUVs) in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy, Elsevier Inc, 2010,31, 495–505
15. Referans15 Steinberg JD, Vogel W, Vegt E. Factors influencing brown fat activation in FDG PET/CT: a retrospective analysis of 15,0001 cases, Br J Radiol, 2017, 90
16. Referans16 Kevin R. Carter, Kotlyarov E, Common Causes of False Positive F18 FDG PET/CT Scans in Oncology, 2007, 50, 29-35
17. Referans17 Scheuermann JS, Saffer JR, Karp JS, Levering AM, Siegel BA, Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: the American College of Radiology Imaging Network experience, J Nucl Med, 2009, 50(7), 1187-93
18. Referans18 Jadvar h, J.A. Parker, Clinical PET and PET/CT Springer PET Physics and Instrumentation, 2008, 100-6