Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:11S–20S.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ross R. Advances in the application of imaging methods in applied and clinical physiology. Acta Diabetol. 2003;40 Suppl 1:S45–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mattsson S, Thomas BJ. Development of methods for body composition studies. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:R203–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Morgan DJ, Bray KM. Lean body mass as a predictor of drug dosage. Implications for drug therapy. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1994;26:292–307.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. James WPT. Research on obesity: a report of the DHSS/MRC group. London: H.M.S.O; 1976;9.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hanneman SK. Design, analysis, and interpretation of method-comparison studies. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2008;19:223–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dae-Weung Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-012-0146-8

Keywords

Navigation