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
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • 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
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • 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
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportOncology: Basic & Translational -> Basic Science (O)

Liver and blood pool SULs normalized by CT based lean body mass is more reliable than those by predictive formulas

Shuang Hu and zhang li
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2020, 61 (supplement 1) 1320;
Shuang Hu
1nuclear medicine affiliated hospital of southwest medical university Luzhou China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
zhang li
1nuclear medicine affiliated hospital of southwest medical university Luzhou China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

1320

Objectives: PERCIST recommends using SUV normalized by lean body mass (SUL) as a strong response parameter. The LBM is often estimated by various predictive formulas in clinical practice. However, errors is substantial with formulas. The aim of study was to introduce a method for estimating lean body mass (LBM) by limited field of view (FOV) CT from PET/CT, and compare the results with LBM estimates of various formulas. SULpeak in normal liver and blood pool with different methods will also be compared.

Methods: A total of 52 patients who received whole-body PET/CT examinations (the arms were maintained above the head) were retrospectively retrieved. The body composition could be calculated based on threshold of CT attenuation. LBM determined was defined in 7 ways by CT (LBMCT1-7) and 2 ways predictive equations (LBMF1-2). All results were compared with the measurement of LBM from whole-body CT (LBMCT1, reference standard) described in the literature. Liver SUV normalized by LBM was calculated using LBM from each method (SULCT1-7, SULF1-2). Agreement between methods was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. Percentage difference and percentage error were also calculated.

Results: The intraclass correlations (ICC) of liver and blood pool SULpeak measurement evaluated from different limited FOV of CT compared with the reference standard were excellent. The ICC is 0.997, 0.996, 0.994, 0.993, 0.979 and 0.978 for SULCT2-7, only 0.792 and 0.762 for LBMF1-2. The best ICC being obtained for the largest FOV, from eye to 20cm under ischia: ICC, 0.997; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.993-0.999; P < 0.0001, is much better than the ICC obtained with the mathematic formulas (the best ICC for a mathematic formula was 0.7792; 95% CI, 0.543-0.899; P ,<0.0001). Moreover, the analysis with the Bland-Altman plot showed that the differences in mean lean masses between the studied technique and the reference standard was the smallest for the proposed technique (for the largest FOV, mean difference -0.1 kg with the narrowest 95% CI [−1.5 to 1.3 kg]). SULpeak of both liver and blood pool normalized by LBM from CT has smaller SDs (0.42 vs 0.35, and 0.36 vs 0.28).

Conclusions: The present study demonstrated substantial errors in individual SULFs compared with SULCTs as a reference value. Normalization of SUV by LBM determined by CT rather than formulas is a useful approach to reduce errors in individual SULFs, even with limited FOV.

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 61, Issue supplement 1
May 1, 2020
  • 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.
Liver and blood pool SULs normalized by CT based lean body mass is more reliable than those by predictive formulas
(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
Liver and blood pool SULs normalized by CT based lean body mass is more reliable than those by predictive formulas
Shuang Hu, zhang li
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2020, 61 (supplement 1) 1320;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Liver and blood pool SULs normalized by CT based lean body mass is more reliable than those by predictive formulas
Shuang Hu, zhang li
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2020, 61 (supplement 1) 1320;
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...

  • SUVs Are Adequate Measures of Lesional 18F-DCFPyL Uptake in Patients with Low Prostate Cancer Disease Burden
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Oncology: Basic & Translational -> Basic Science (O)

  • SUVR for the Interpretation of Neuroendocrine Tumor PET Imaging with68Ga-dotatate
  • Absolute quantification provided by 177Lu SPECT images recorded by a high-speed 360° whole-body CZT camera: a feasibility study on phantom and patient
  • A nomogram modeling 11C-MET PET/CT and clinical features in gliomas helps predict IDH mutation
Show more Oncology: Basic & Translational -> Basic Science (O)

Image Guided Therapy (Poster Session)

  • SUVR for the Interpretation of Neuroendocrine Tumor PET Imaging with68Ga-dotatate
  • Absolute quantification provided by 177Lu SPECT images recorded by a high-speed 360° whole-body CZT camera: a feasibility study on phantom and patient
  • A nomogram modeling 11C-MET PET/CT and clinical features in gliomas helps predict IDH mutation
Show more Image Guided Therapy (Poster Session)

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire