| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | RSS | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||
Clinical Investigations |
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
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. M. Velasquez, R. Boellaard, G. Kollia, W. Hayes, O. S. Hoekstra, A. A. Lammertsma, and S. M. Galbraith Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a Multicenter Phase I Study of Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Malignancies J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2009; 50(10): 1646 - 1654. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Boellaard Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data Analysis J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2009; 50(Suppl_1): 11S - 20S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. J. de Langen, M. Lubberink, R. Boellaard, M. D. Spreeuwenberg, E. F. Smit, O. S. Hoekstra, and A. A. Lammertsma Reproducibility of Tumor Perfusion Measurements Using 15O-Labeled Water and PET J. Nucl. Med., November 1, 2008; 49(11): 1763 - 1768. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. P. Visser, M. E.P. Philippens, L. Kienhorst, J. H.A.M. Kaanders, F. H.M. Corstens, L.-F. de Geus-Oei, and W. J.G. Oyen Comparison of Tumor Volumes Derived from Glucose Metabolic Rate Maps and SUV Maps in Dynamic 18F-FDG PET J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2008; 49(6): 892 - 898. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. L. Frost, G. M. Blake, S.-J. Park-Holohan, G. J.R. Cook, K. M. Curran, P. K. Marsden, and I. Fogelman Long-Term Precision of 18F-Fluoride PET Skeletal Kinetic Studies in the Assessment of Bone Metabolism J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2008; 49(5): 700 - 707. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L.F. de Geus-Oei, H. W. M. van Laarhoven, E. P. Visser, R. Hermsen, B. A. van Hoorn, Y. J. L. Kamm, P. F. M. Krabbe, F. H. M. Corstens, C. J. A. Punt, and W. J. G. Oyen Chemotherapy response evaluation with FDG-PET in patients with colorectal cancer Ann. Onc., February 1, 2008; 19(2): 348 - 352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L.-F. de Geus-Oei, H. F.M. van der Heijden, E. P. Visser, R. Hermsen, B. A. van Hoorn, J. N.H. Timmer-Bonte, A. T. Willemsen, J. Pruim, F. H.M. Corstens, P. F.M. Krabbe, et al. Chemotherapy Response Evaluation with 18F-FDG PET in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2007; 48(10): 1592 - 1598. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. K. Doot, L. K. Dunnwald, E. K. Schubert, M. Muzi, L. M. Peterson, P. E. Kinahan, B. F. Kurland, and D. A. Mankoff Dynamic and Static Approaches to Quantifying 18F-FDG Uptake for Measuring Cancer Response to Therapy, Including the Effect of Granulocyte CSF J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2007; 48(6): 920 - 925. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O. Couturier, G. Jerusalem, J.-M. N'Guyen, and R. Hustinx Sequential Positron Emission Tomography Using [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose for Monitoring Response to Chemotherapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res., November 1, 2006; 12(21): 6437 - 6443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. J. Hoekstra, S. G. Stroobants, E. F. Smit, J. Vansteenkiste, H. van Tinteren, P. E. Postmus, R. P. Golding, B. Biesma, F. J.H.M. Schramel, N. van Zandwijk, et al. Prognostic Relevance of Response Evaluation Using [18F]-2-Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography in Patients With Locally Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., November 20, 2005; 23(33): 8362 - 8370. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Installe, A. Nzeusseu, A. Bol, G. Depresseux, J.-P. Devogelaer, and M. Lonneux 18F-Fluoride PET for Monitoring Therapeutic Response in Paget's Disease of Bone J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2005; 46(10): 1650 - 1658. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Westerterp, H. L. van Westreenen, J. B. Reitsma, O. S. Hoekstra, J. Stoker, P. Fockens, P. L. Jager, B. L. F. Van Eck-Smit, J. T. M. Plukker, J. J. B. van Lanschot, et al. Esophageal Cancer: CT, Endoscopic US, and FDG PET for Assessment of Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy--Systematic Review Radiology, September 1, 2005; 236(3): 841 - 851. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. C. Detterbeck, J. F. Vansteenkiste, D. E. Morris, C. A. Dooms, A. H. Khandani, and M. A. Socinski Seeking a Home for a PET, Part 3: Emerging Applications of Positron Emission Tomography Imaging in the Management of Patients With Lung Cancer Chest, November 1, 2004; 126(5): 1656 - 1666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Boellaard, N. C. Krak, O. S. Hoekstra, and A. A. Lammertsma Effects of Noise, Image Resolution, and ROI Definition on the Accuracy of Standard Uptake Values: A Simulation Study J. Nucl. Med., September 1, 2004; 45(9): 1519 - 1527. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Paquet, A. Albert, J. Foidart, and R. Hustinx Within-Patient Variability of 18F-FDG: Standardized Uptake Values in Normal Tissues J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2004; 45(5): 784 - 788. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Ott, U. Fink, K. Becker, A. Stahl, H.-J. Dittler, R. Busch, H. Stein, F. Lordick, T. Link, M. Schwaiger, et al. Prediction of Response to Preoperative Chemotherapy in Gastric Carcinoma by Metabolic Imaging: Results of a Prospective Trial J. Clin. Oncol., December 15, 2003; 21(24): 4604 - 4610. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Barlesi, C. Doddoli, B. Chetaille, J.-P. Torre, R. Giudicelli, P. Thomas, J.-P. Kleisbauer, and P. Fuentes Survival and postoperative complication in daily practice after neoadjuvant therapy in resectable stage IIIA-N2 non-small cell lung cancer Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, December 1, 2003; 2(4): 558 - 562. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. K. Buck, G. Halter, H. Schirrmeister, J. Kotzerke, I. Wurziger, G. Glatting, T. Mattfeldt, B. Neumaier, S. N. Reske, and M. Hetzel Imaging Proliferation in Lung Tumors with PET: 18F-FLT Versus 18F-FDG J. Nucl. Med., September 1, 2003; 44(9): 1426 - 1431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. Weber, V. Petersen, B. Schmidt, L. Tyndale-Hines, T. Link, C. Peschel, and M. Schwaiger Positron Emission Tomography in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Prediction of Response to Chemotherapy by Quantitative Assessment of Glucose Use J. Clin. Oncol., July 15, 2003; 21(14): 2651 - 2657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | RSS | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY | THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE |
