Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Continuing Education
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Continuing Education
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportOncology, Basic Science Track

Quantitative Na-18F PET/CT Methodologies for Assessing Osteoblastic Tumor Burden

Carl Odom, Chadwick Wright, Preethi Subramanian, J Monk, Amir Mortazavi and Michael Knopp
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2016, 57 (supplement 2) 2709a;
Carl Odom
5Department of Radiology The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Columbus OH United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chadwick Wright
2The Ohio State University Lewis Center OH United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Preethi Subramanian
1The Ohio State University Columbus OH United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J Monk
4Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Columbus OH United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amir Mortazavi
4Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Columbus OH United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Knopp
3Wright Center of Innovation The Ohio State University Columbus OH United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

2709a

Objectives Standard Uptake Value (SUV) is a metric that has been clinically used for describing tumor burden in PET imaging. Although routinely used for 18F-FDG PET, maximum lesion SUVs for Na18F-avid lesions demonstrate very high values even in benign areas of increased bone turnover. Total lesion fluoride (TLF) and fluoride tumor volume (FTV) are recently described quantitative Na18F measures that may be better descriptors and may enable better prognostic information for malignant/metastatic osteoblastic lesions. The methodologies for determining such metrics can be rapidly established using whole-body threshold-based isocontouring but can be confounded by the inadvertent inclusion of benign regions of increased bone turnover. The objective of this study was to assess clinical methodologies for assessing and quantifying osteoblastic tumor burden in a variety of oncologic patients referred for diagnostic Na18F PET/CT.

Methods This retrospective analysis was performed in 36 oncology patients who underwent baseline Na-18F PET/CT imaging studies. The oncologic tumor types included prostate, breast, thyroid, and head/neck cancers. Following intravenous administration of 372 MBq of Na-18F, whole body PET/CT imaging was performed around 95 min following administration. Visual assessment of 18F-avid osteoblastic lesions was performed by a reader panel. Quantitative isocontour assessment of 18F-avid osteoblastic tumor burden was completed and the following parameters were assessed: highest SUVmax for all osteoblastic lesion (hSUVmax), average of SUVmax values for all 18F-avid osteoblastic lesions, total lesion fluoride uptake (TLF), and fluoride tumor volume (FTV). Isocontours were obtained by either automated threshold-based whole body contouring or manual contouring of individual osteoblastic metastatic lesions.

Results Qualitative assessment of the patient population yielded a spectrum of 18F-avid osteoblastic tumor burden ranging from a few isolated lesions to extensive multifocal osteoblastic disease. This patient population also demonstrated a wide spectrum of osteoblastic degenerative disease burden. Quantitative whole-body isocontour assessment of 18F-avid osteoblastic activity using a minimum threshold SUV of 10 demonstrated sufficient isocontouring for capturing osteoblastic metastatic lesions but it also captures the vast majority of active osteoblastic degenerative disease which confounds quantification efforts. Although more time consuming, quantitative lesion-by-lesion isocontour assessment of 18F-avid osteoblastic metastatic lesions minimizes any false-positive osteoblastic activity from underlying degenerative disease and provides a better assessment of tumor-specific osteoblastic disease burden.

Conclusions In general, the prevalence of underlying degenerative disease in our patient population limits the ability to rely on semi-automated whole body threshold-based isocontouring for the assessment and quantification of tumor-specific osteoblastic disease burden. Although such approaches are faster and require minimal training, the presence of benign osteoblastic degenerative disease may limit its clinical utilization due to high false positive rates or overestimation of tumor-specific disease burden. For nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists, the alternative approach of using lesion-by-lesion quantitative assessment may be more robust and more accurate for assessing tumor-specific osteoblastic disease burden.

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 57, Issue supplement 2
May 1, 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Quantitative Na-18F PET/CT Methodologies for Assessing Osteoblastic Tumor Burden
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Quantitative Na-18F PET/CT Methodologies for Assessing Osteoblastic Tumor Burden
Carl Odom, Chadwick Wright, Preethi Subramanian, J Monk, Amir Mortazavi, Michael Knopp
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2016, 57 (supplement 2) 2709a;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Quantitative Na-18F PET/CT Methodologies for Assessing Osteoblastic Tumor Burden
Carl Odom, Chadwick Wright, Preethi Subramanian, J Monk, Amir Mortazavi, Michael Knopp
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2016, 57 (supplement 2) 2709a;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Oncology, Basic Science Track

  • Imaging adult glioma with 68Ga-citrate PET/MR
  • Evaluation of L-1-[18F]Fluoroethyl-Tryptophan for PET Imaging of Cancer
  • Pretargeted radioimmunotherapy with 225Ac-proteus-DOTA hapten.
Show more Oncology, Basic Science Track

MTA I: Technical Advances and Quantification Posters

  • Inter-observer agreement for tumor uptake quantification of 89Zr-labeled anti-CD20 antibodies with PET
  • Monitoring Tumor Response to Vascular Disrupting Agent Using Photoacoustic Tomography and Multiparametric MRI
Show more MTA I: Technical Advances and Quantification Posters

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire