Abstract
Purpose
Standardized uptake values (SUVs) normalized by lean body mass (LBM) determined by CT were compared with those normalized by LBM estimated using predictive equations (PEs) in normal liver, spleen, and aorta using 18F-FDG PET/CT.
Methods
Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) was conducted on 453 patients. LBM determined by CT was defined in 3 ways (LBMCT1-3). Five PEs were used for comparison (LBMPE1-5). Tissue SUV normalized by LBM (SUL) was calculated using LBM from each method (SULCT1-3, SULPE1-5). Agreement between methods was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. Percentage difference and percentage error were also calculated.
Results
For all liver SULCTs vs. liver SULPEs except liver SULPE3, the range of biases, SDs of percentage difference and percentage errors were −0.17-0.24 SUL, 6.15-10.17 %, and 25.07- 38.91 %, respectively. For liver SULCTs vs. liver SULPE3, the corresponding figures were 0.47-0.69 SUL, 10.90-11.25 %, and 50.85-51.55 %, respectively, showing the largest percentage errors and positive biases. Irrespective of magnitudes of the biases, large percentage errors of 25.07-51.55 % were observed between liver SULCT1-3 and liver SULPE1-5. The results of spleen and aorta SULCTs and SULPEs comparison were almost identical to those for liver.
Conclusion
The present study demonstrated substantial errors in individual SULPEs compared with SULCTs as a reference value. Normalization of SUV by LBM determined by CT rather than PEs may be a useful approach to reduce errors in individual SULPEs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Park S, Ryu J-S, Oh S-J, Park S-I, Kim Y, Jung H-Y, et al. The feasibility of 18F-Fluorothymidine PET for prediction of tumor response after induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy with S-1/Oxaliplatin in patients with resectable esophageal cancer. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;46:57–64.
Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:11S–20S.
Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology. 1993;189:847–50.
Yeung HW, Sanches A, Squire OD, Macapinlac HA, Larson SM, Erdi YE. Standardized uptake value in pediatric patients: an investigation to determine the optimum measurement parameter. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:61–6.
Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Neuhoff AW, Wahl RL. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. Radiology. 1999;213:521–5.
Menda Y, Bushnell DL, Madsen MT, McLaughlin K, Kahn D, Kernstine KH. Evaluation of various corrections to the standardized uptake value for diagnosis of pulmonary malignancy. Nucl Med Commun. 2001;22:1077–81.
Lindholm P, Minn H, Leskinen-Kallio S, Bergman J, Ruotsalainen U, Joensuu H. Influence of the blood glucose concentration on FDG uptake in cancer–a PET study. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:1–6.
Langen KJ, Braun U, Rota Kops E, Herzog H, Kuwert T, Nebeling B, et al. The influence of plasma glucose levels on fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in bronchial carcinomas. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:355–9.
Kim CK, Gupta NC, Chandramouli B, Alavi A. Standardized uptake values of FDG: body surface area correction is preferable to body weight correction. J Nucl Med. 1994;35:164–7.
Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:122S–50S.
Kim CG, Kim WH, Kim DW. Direct determination of individual lean body mass by using CT image data in 18F-FDG PET/CT studies: Comparison with lean body mass estimated by using various predictive equations. J Nucl Med. 2011;52 Suppl 1:391.
Ross R, Leger L, Guardo R, De Guise J, Pike BG. Adipose tissue volume measured by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography in rats. J Appl Physiol. 1991;70:2164–72.
Rossner S, Bo WJ, Hiltbrandt E, Hinson W, Karstaedt N, Santago P, et al. Adipose tissue determinations in cadavers–a comparison between cross-sectional planimetry and computed tomography. Int J Obes. 1990;14:893–902.
Mitsiopoulos N, Baumgartner RN, Heymsfield SB, Lyons W, Gallagher D, Ross R. Cadaver validation of skeletal muscle measurement by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography. J Appl Physiol. 1998;85:115–22.
Sjostrom L, Kvist H, Cederblad A, Tylen U. Determination of total adipose tissue and body fat in women by computed tomography, 40 K, and tritium. Am J Physiol. 1986;250:E736–45.
Seidell JC, Bakker CJ, van der Kooy K. Imaging techniques for measuring adipose-tissue distribution–a comparison between computed tomography and 1.5-T magnetic resonance. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;51:953–7.
Ross R. Advances in the application of imaging methods in applied and clinical physiology. Acta Diabetol. 2003;40 Suppl 1:S45–50.
Mattsson S, Thomas BJ. Development of methods for body composition studies. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:R203–28.
Martin AD, Daniel MZ, Drinkwater DT, Clarys JP. Adipose tissue density, estimated adipose lipid fraction and whole body adiposity in male cadavers. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1994;18:79–83.
Deurenberg P, Weststrate JA, Seidell JC. Body mass index as a measure of body fatness: age- and sex-specific prediction formulas. Br J Nutr. 1991;65:105–14.
Gallagher D, Heymsfield SB, Heo M, Jebb SA, Murgatroyd PR, Sakamoto Y. Healthy percentage body fat ranges: an approach for developing guidelines based on body mass index. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;72:694–701.
Morgan DJ, Bray KM. Lean body mass as a predictor of drug dosage. Implications for drug therapy. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1994;26:292–307.
James WPT. Research on obesity: a report of the DHSS/MRC group. London: H.M.S.O; 1976;9.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135–60.
Hanneman SK. Design, analysis, and interpretation of method-comparison studies. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2008;19:223–34.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MEST) (No. 2011–0018362).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, W.H., Kim, C.G. & Kim, DW. Comparison of SUVs Normalized by Lean Body Mass Determined by CT with Those Normalized by Lean Body Mass Estimated by Predictive Equations in Normal Tissues. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46, 182–188 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-012-0146-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-012-0146-8