HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH RSS TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jnumed.109.066241v1 51/2/268    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JNM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Tylski, P. Articles by Buvat, I. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tylski, P. Articles by Buvat, I.

Comparative Assessment of Methods for Estimating Tumor Volume and Standardized Uptake Value in ¹⁸F-FDG PET

¹ IMNC UMR 8165 CNRS–Paris 7 and Paris 11 Universities, Orsay, France; ² LITIS EA 4108 Laboratory, University of Rouen, Rouen, France; and ³ Nuclear Medicine Department, Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: Perrine Tylski, IMNC, Campus d'Orsay, Bâtiment 104, 91406 Orsay Cedex, France. E-mail: tylski{at}imnc.in2p3.fr

In ¹⁸F-FDG PET, tumors are often characterized by their metabolically active volume and standardized uptake value (SUV). However, many approaches have been proposed to estimate tumor volume and SUV from ¹⁸F-FDG PET images, none of them being widely agreed upon. We assessed the accuracy and robustness of 5 methods for tumor volume estimates and of 10 methods for SUV estimates in a large variety of configurations. Methods: PET acquisitions of an anthropomorphic phantom containing 17 spheres (volumes between 0.43 and 97 mL, sphere-to-surrounding-activity concentration ratios between 2 and 68) were used. Forty-one nonspheric tumors (volumes between 0.6 and 92 mL, SUV of 2, 4, and 8) were also simulated and inserted in a real patient ¹⁸F-FDG PET scan. Four threshold-based methods (including one, T_bgd, accounting for background activity) and a model-based method (Fit) described in the literature were used for tumor volume measurements. The mean SUV in the resulting volumes were calculated, without and with partial-volume effect (PVE) correction, as well as the maximum SUV (SUV_max). The parameters involved in the tumor segmentation and SUV estimation methods were optimized using 3 approaches, corresponding to getting the best of each method or testing each method in more realistic situations in which the parameters cannot be perfectly optimized. Results: In the phantom and simulated data, the T_bgd and Fit methods yielded the most accurate volume estimates, with mean errors of 2% ± 11% and –8% ± 21% in the most realistic situations. Considering the simulated data, all SUV not corrected for PVE had a mean bias between –31% and –46%, much larger than the bias observed with SUV_max (–11% ± 23%) or with the PVE-corrected SUV based on T_bgd and Fit (–2% ± 10% and 3% ± 24%). Conclusion: The method used to estimate tumor volume and SUV greatly affects the reliability of the estimates. The T_bgd and Fit methods yielded low errors in volume estimates in a broad range of situations. The PVE-corrected SUV based on T_bgd and Fit were more accurate and reproducible than SUV_max.

Key Words: PET • standardized uptake value • tumor volume • partial volume effect correction • tumor segmentation

COPYRIGHT © 2010 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.

Related articles in JNM:

This Month in JNM

JNM 2010 51: 11A-12A. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. A. Taylor, J. B. Bomanji, L. Manpanzure, C. Robinson, A. M. Groves, J. Dickson, N. D. Papathanasiou, R. Greenhalgh, P. J. Ell, and S. Halligan Nonlaxative PET/CT Colonography: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Pilot Performance in Patients at Higher Risk of Colonic Neoplasia J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2010; 51(6): 854 - 861. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. P. Visser, O. C. Boerman, and W. J.G. Oyen SUV: From Silly Useless Value to Smart Uptake Value J. Nucl. Med., February 1, 2010; 51(2): 173 - 175. [Full Text] [PDF]