JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hoekstra, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Lammertsma, A. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hoekstra, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Lammertsma, A. A.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Vol. 43 No. 10 1304-1309
© 2002 by Society of Nuclear Medicine

Clinical Investigations

Methods to Monitor Response to Chemotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with 18F-FDG PET

Corneline J. Hoekstra, MD1,2, Otto S. Hoekstra, MD, PhD1,3, Sigrid G. Stroobants, MD4, Johan Vansteenkiste, MD, PhD5, Johan Nuyts, PhD4, Egbert F. Smit, MD, PhD2, Maarten Boers, MD, PhD3, Jos W.R. Twisk, PhD3 and Adriaan A. Lammertsma, PhD1

1 Clinical PET Centre, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 Department of Pulmonary Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4 Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium
5 Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium

PET using 18F-FDG is a promising technique to monitor response in oncology. Unfortunately, a multitude of analytic methods is in use. To date, it is not clear whether simplified methods could replace complex quantitative methods in routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to select those methods that would qualify for further assessment in a future prospective response-monitoring study by comparing results with patient outcome. Methods: Dynamic 18F-FDG PET scans were obtained on 2 groups of patients. First, 10 patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were scanned on consecutive days before treatment to assess test–retest variability. Second, 30 scans were obtained on 19 patients with locally advanced NSCLC as part of an ongoing response-monitoring study. These scans were analyzed by 2 observers to assess observer variability. In addition, these studies were used to compare various methods with the gold standard, full kinetic analysis (nonlinear regression [NLR]). Results: Using an image-derived input function, NLR showed excellent test–retest and observer agreement confirming that it could be used as a gold standard method. From a total of 34 analytic methods, 10 showed good correlation with NLR. Taking into account the degree of complexity of the methods, 4 remain for further evaluation. Conclusion: The optimal method for analysis of 18F-FDG PET data was determined for several levels of complexity. Four methods need to be evaluated further to determine the optimal trade-off between simplicity and accuracy for routine clinical practice.

Key Words: response monitoring • 18F-FDG PET • cancer • methodology






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Copyright © 2002 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine.