Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Recent Trends in PET Image Interpretations Using Volumetric and Texture-based Quantification Methods in Nuclear Oncology

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

Abstract

Image quantification studies in positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) are of immense importance in the diagnosis and follow-up of variety of cancers. In this review we have described the current image quantification methodologies employed in 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET in major oncological conditions with particular emphasis on tumor heterogeneity studies. We have described various quantitative parameters being used in PET image analysis. The main contemporary methodology is to measure tumor metabolic activity; however, analysis of other image-related parameters is also increasing. Primarily, we have identified the existing role of tumor heterogeneity studies in major cancers using 18F-FDG PET. We have also described some newer radiopharmaceuticals other than 18F-FDG being studied/used in the management of these cancers. Tumor heterogeneity studies are being performed in almost all major oncological conditions using 18F-FDG PET. The role of these studies is very promising in the management of these conditions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Almuhaideb A, Papathanasiou N, Bomanji J. 18 F-FDG PET/CT imaging in oncology. Ann Saudi Med. 2011;31:3–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kato H, Nakajima M. The efficacy of FDG-PET for the management of esophageal cancer: review article. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;18:412–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Moon SH, Hyun SH, Choi JY. Prognostic significance of volume-based PET parameters in cancer patients. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14:1–12.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Davnall F, Yip CS, Ljungqvist G, Selmi M, Ng F, Sanghera B, et al. Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging. 2012;3:573–89.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:932–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van Velden FH, Cheebsumon P, Yaqub M, Smit EF, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, et al. Evaluation of a cumulative SUV-volume histogram method for parameterizing heterogeneous intratumoural FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1636–47.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chicklore S, Goh V, Siddique M, Roy A, Marsden PK, Cook GJ. Quantifying tumour heterogeneity in 18 F-FDG PET/CT imaging by texture analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:133–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tomasi G, Turkheimer F, Aboagye E. Importance of quantification for the analysis of PET data in oncology: review of current methods and trends for the future. Mol Imaging Biol. 2012;14:131–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Watabe H, Ikoma Y, Kimura Y, Naganawa M, Shidahara M. PET kinetic analysis–compartmental model. Ann Nucl Med. 2006;20:583–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gunn RN, Gunn SR, Cunningham VJ. Positron emission tomography compartmental models. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2001;21:635–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Logan J. Graphical analysis of PET data applied to reversible and irreversible tracers. Nucl Med Biol. 2000;27:661–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cunningham VJ, Jones T. Spectral analysis of dynamic PET studies. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1993;13:15–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kiyohara S, Nagamachi S, Wakamatsu H, Nishii R, Fujita S. Futami S et al [Usefulness of metabolic volume and total lesion glycolysis for predicting therapeutic response in cancer therapy by 18 F-FDG PET/CT]. Kaku Igaku. 2010;47:453–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Asselin MCOCJ, Boellaard R, Thacker NA, Jackson A. Quantifying heterogeneity in human tumours using MRI and PET. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:447–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Hatt M, Albarghach N, Pradier O, Metges JP, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity characterized by textural features on baseline 18 F-FDG PET images predicts response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:369–78.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Haralick RM, Shanmugan K, Dinstein I. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1973;SMC-3:610–21.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Loh HH, Leu JG, Luo RC. Analysis of natural textures using run length features. IEEE Trans Ind Electron. 1988;35:323–8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schad LR, Bluml S, Zuna I. MR tissue characterization of intracranial tumors by means of texture analysis. Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;11:889–96.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Thibault G, Fertil B, Navarro C, Pereira S, Cau P, Levy N, et al. Texture indexes and gray level size zone matrix: application to cell nuclei classification. Pattern Recognition Inf Process. 2009:140-5.

  21. Amadasun M, King R. Textural features corresponding to textural properties. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1989;19:1264–74.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mohamed SS, Youssef AM, El-Saadany EF, Salama MMA. Prostate tissue characterization using TRUS image spectral features. Image Anal Recog. 2006;4142:589–601. Pt 2.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Clausi DA. An analysis of co-occurrence texture statistics as a function of grey level quantization. Can J Remote Sens. 2002;28:45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tixier F, Hatt M, Le Rest CC, Le Pogam A, Corcos L, Visvikis D. Reproducibility of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization through textural feature analysis in 18 F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:693–700.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Galavis PE, Hollensen C, Jallow N, Paliwal B, Jeraj R. Variability of textural features in FDG PET images due to different acquisition modes and reconstruction parameters. Acta Oncol. 2010;49:1012–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Parker SL, Tong T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1997. CA Cancer J Clin. 1997;47:5–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. von Fournier D, Anton HW, Junkermann H, Bastert G. van Kaick G [Breast cancer screening. State of the art and introduction to preventive measures]. Radiologe. 1993;33:227–35.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Phelps ME. PET: Molecular imaging and its biological applications. Springer; 2004.

  29. Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Pisano ED, Aronson N. Should FDG PET be used to decide whether a patient with an abnormal mammogram or breast finding at physical examination should undergo biopsy? Acad Radiol. 2002;9:773–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rosen EL, Eubank WB, Mankoff DAFDGPET. PET/CT, and breast cancer imaging. Radiographics. 2007;27 Suppl 1:S215–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Utech CI, Young CS, Winter PF. Prospective evaluation of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyclucose positron emission tomography in breast cancer for staging of the axilla related to surgery and immunocytochemistry. Eur J Nucl Med. 1996;23:1588–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pan L, Han Y, Sun X, Liu J, Gang H. FDG-PET and other imaging modalities for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases: a meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010;136:1007–22.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gennari A, Donati S, Salvadori B, Giorgetti A, Salvadori PA, Sorace O, et al. Role of 2-[18 F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in the early assessment of response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients. Clin Breast Cancer. 2000;1:156–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cachin F, Prince HM, Hogg A, Ware RE, Hicks RJ. Powerful prognostic stratification by [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with high-dose chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3026–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Buck AK, Schirrmeister H, Mattfeldt T, Reske SN. Biological characterisation of breast cancer by means of PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31 Suppl 1:S80–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mavi A, Cermik TF, Urhan M, Puskulcu H, Basu S, Yu JQ, et al. The effects of estrogen, progesterone, and C-erbB-2 receptor states on 18 F-FDG uptake of primary breast cancer lesions. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1266–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kaida H, Toh U, Hayakawa M, Hattori S, Fujii T, Kurata S, et al. The relationship between 18 F-FDG metabolic volumetric parameters and clinicopathological factors of breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2013;34:562–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kim J, Yoo SW, Kang SR, Cho SG, Oh JR, Chon R, Min JJ, et al. Prognostic significance of metabolic tumor volume measured by 18 F-FDG PET/CT in operable primary breast cancer. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;46:278–85.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Im HJ, Kim YK, Kim YI, Lee JJ, Lee WW, Kim SE. Usefulness of combined metabolic–volumetric indices of 18 F-FDG PET/CT for the early prediction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy outcomes in breast cancer. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;47:36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Avril N, Menzel M, Dose J, Schelling M, Weber W, Janicke F, et al. Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by 18 F-FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:9–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tomasi G, Rosso L. PET imaging: implications for the future of therapy monitoring with PET/CT in oncology. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2012;12:569–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Smyczek-Gargya B, Fersis N, Dittmann H, Vogel U, Reischl G, Machulla HJ, et al. PET with [18 F]fluorothymidine for imaging of primary breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:720–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mortimer JE, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Trinkaus K, Katzenellenbogen JA, Welch MJ. Metabolic flare: indicator of hormone responsiveness in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2797–803.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Linden HM, Stekhova SA, Link JM, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Ellis GK, et al. Quantitative fluoroestradiol positron emission tomography imaging predicts response to endocrine treatment in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2793–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:2893–917.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, Ghafoor A, Samuels A, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004;54:8–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Schrevens L, Lorent N, Dooms C, Vansteenkiste J. The role of PET scan in diagnosis, staging, and management of non-small cell lung cancer. Oncologist. 2004;9:633–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Yoon DH, Baek S, Choi CM, Lee DH, Suh C, Ryu JS, et al. FDG-PET as a potential tool for selecting patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who may be spared maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:5093–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Shiraishi K, Nomori H, Ohba Y, Kaji M, Mori T, Shibata H, et al. Repeat FDG-PET for predicting pathological tumor response and prognosis after neoadjuvant treatment in nonsmall cell lung cancer: comparison with computed tomography. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;16:394–400.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rebollo-Aguirre AC, Ramos-Font C, Villegas Portero R, Cook GJ, Llamas Elvira JM, Romero TA. Is FDG-PET suitable for evaluating neoadjuvant therapy in non-small cell lung cancer? Evidence with systematic review of the literature. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101:486–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lee DH, Kim SK, Lee HY, Lee SY, Park SH, Kim HY, et al. Early prediction of response to first-line therapy using integrated 18 F-FDG PET/CT for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4:816–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Dooms C, Verbeken E, Stroobants S, Nackaerts K, De Leyn P, Vansteenkiste J. Prognostic stratification of stage IIIA-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer after induction chemotherapy: a model based on the combination of morphometric-pathologic response in mediastinal nodes and primary tumor response on serial 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1128–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. de Geus-Oei LF, van der Heijden HF, Visser EP, Hermsen R, van Hoorn BA, Timmer-Bonte JN, et al. Chemotherapy response evaluation with 18 F-FDG PET in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1592–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Huang W, Zhou T, Ma L, Sun H, Gong H, Wang J, et al. Standard uptake value and metabolic tumor volume of (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT predict short-term outcome early in the course of chemoradiotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1628–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Mac Manus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, Wirth A, Rischin D, Ball DL. Metabolic (FDG-PET) response after radical radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer correlates with patterns of failure. Lung Cancer. 2005;49:95–108.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. O’Brien ME, Myerson JS, Coward JI, Puglisi M, Trani L, Wotherspoon A, et al. A phase II study of (1)(8)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving erlotinib (Tarceva); objective and symptomatic responses at 6 and 12 weeks. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:68–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Memon AA, Weber B, Winterdahl M, Jakobsen S, Meldgaard P, Madsen HH, et al. PET imaging of patients with non-small cell lung cancer employing an EGF receptor targeting drug as tracer. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:1850–5.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Berghmans T, Dusart M, Paesmans M, Hossein-Foucher C, Buvat I, Castaigne C, et al. Primary tumor standardized uptake value (SUVmax) measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:6–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Al-Sarraf N, Gately K, Lucey J, Aziz R, Doddakula K, Wilson L, et al. Clinical implication and prognostic significance of standardised uptake value of primary non-small cell lung cancer on positron emission tomography: analysis of 176 cases. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008;34:892–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ohno Y, Koyama H, Yoshikawa T, Matsumoto K, Aoyama N, Onishi Y, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI versus 18 F-FDG PET/CT: performance as predictors of tumor treatment response and patient survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving chemoradiotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:75–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Zhang HQ, Yu JM, Meng X, Yue JB, Feng R, Ma L. Prognostic value of serial [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT uptake in stage III patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated by concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Radiol. 2011;77:92–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Borst GR, Belderbos JS, Boellaard R, Comans EF, De Jaeger K, Lammertsma AA, et al. Standardised FDG uptake: a prognostic factor for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:1533–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lee KH, Lee SH, Kim DW, Kang WJ, Chung JK, Im SA, et al. High fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer on platinum-based combination chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:4232–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kim DW, Kim WH, Kim CG. Dual-time-point FDG PET/CT: Is it useful for lymph node staging in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer? Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;46:196–200.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Davison J, Mercier G, Russo G, Subramaniam RM. PET-based primary tumor volumetric parameters and survival of patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:635–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Chen HH, Chiu NT, Su WC, Guo HR, Lee BF. Prognostic value of whole-body total lesion glycolysis at pretreatment FDG PET/CT in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiology. 2012;264:559–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Zhang H, Wroblewski K, Liao S, Kampalath R, Penney BC, Zhang Y, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden from (18)F-FDG PET in surgical patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Acad Radiol. 2013;20:32–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Lin Y, Lin WY, Kao CH, Yen KY, Chen SW, Yeh JJ. Prognostic value of preoperative metabolic tumor volumes on PET-CT in predicting disease-free survival of patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res. 2012;32:5087–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Zaizen Y, Azuma K, Kurata S, Sadashima E, Hattori S, Sasada T, et al. Prognostic significance of total lesion glycolysis in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer receiving chemotherapy. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:4179–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Liao S, Penney BC, Wroblewski K, Zhang H, Simon CA, Kampalath R, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden on 18 F-FDG PET in nonsurgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:27–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Liao S, Penney BC, Zhang H, Suzuki K, Pu Y. Prognostic value of the quantitative metabolic volumetric measurement on 18 F-FDG PET/CT in Stage IV nonsurgical small-cell lung cancer. Acad Radiol. 2012;19:69–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Kim K, Kim SJ, Kim IJ, Kim YS, Pak K, Kim H. Prognostic value of volumetric parameters measured by F-18 FDG PET/CT in surgically resected non-small-cell lung cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33:613–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Yoo SW, Kim J, Chong A, Kwon SY, Min JJ, Song HC, et al. Metabolic tumor volume measured by F-18 FDG PET/CT can further stratify the prognosis of patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;46:286–93.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Hyun SH, Choi JY, Kim K, Kim J, Shim YM, Um SW, et al. Volume-based parameters of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography improve outcome prediction in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer after surgical resection. Ann Surg. 2013;257:364–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Vaidya M, Creach KM, Frye J, Dehdashti F, Bradley JD, El Naqa I. Combined PET/CT image characteristics for radiotherapy tumor response in lung cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2012;102:239–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Cook GJ, Yip C, Siddique M, Goh V, Chicklore S, Roy A, et al. Are pretreatment 18 F-FDG PET tumor textural features in non-small cell lung cancer associated with response and survival after chemoradiotherapy? J Nucl Med. 2013;54:19–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Vesselle H, Grierson J, Muzi M, Pugsley JM, Schmidt RA, Rabinowitz P, et al. In vivo validation of 3′deoxy-3′-[(18)F]fluorothymidine ([(18)F]FLT) as a proliferation imaging tracer in humans: correlation of [(18)F]FLT uptake by positron emission tomography with Ki-67 immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry in human lung tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:3315–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Minamimoto R, Toyohara J, Seike A, Ito H, Endo H, Morooka M, et al. 4′-[Methyl-11C]-thiothymidine PET/CT for proliferation imaging in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:199–206.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Kwee RM. Prediction of tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with esophageal cancer with use of 18F FDG PET: a systematic review. Radiology. 2010;254:707–17.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Tan S, Kligerman S, Chen WG, Lu M, Kim G, Feigenberg S, et al. Spatial-temporal [F-18]FDG-PET features for predicting pathologic response of esophageal cancer to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:1375–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Hyun SH, Choi JY, Shim YM, Kim K, Lee SJ, Cho YS, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume measured by 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:115–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Dong XZ, Xing LG, Wu PP, Fu Z, Wan HL, Li DW, et al. Three-dimensional positron emission tomography image texture analysis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: relationship between tumor F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake heterogeneity, maximum standardized uptake value, and tumor stage. Nucl Med Commun. 2013;34:40–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Hatt M, Tixier F, Cheze Le Rest C, Pradier O, Visvikis D. Robustness of intratumour F-FDG PET uptake heterogeneity quantification for therapy response prediction in oesophageal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2486-8.

    Google Scholar 

  84. MacManus M, Nestle U, Rosenzweig KE, Carrio I, Messa C, Belohlavek O, et al. Use of PET and PET/CT for Radiation Therapy Planning: IAEA expert report 2006-2007. Radiother Oncol. 2009;91:85–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. van Westreenen HL, Cobben DC, Jager PL, van Dullemen HM, Wesseling J, Elsinga PH, et al. Comparison of 18 F-FLT PET and 18 F-FDG PET in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:400–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Han D, Yu J, Yu Y, Zhang G, Zhong X, Lu J, et al. Comparison of (18)F-fluorothymidine and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT in delineating gross tumor volume by optimal threshold in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of thoracic esophagus. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:1235–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Han D, Yu J, Zhong X, Fu Z, Mu D, Zhang B, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic value of 3-deoxy-3-18 F-fluorothymidine and 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the assessment of regional lymph node in thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a pilot study. Dis Esophagus. 2012;25:416–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Sohda M, Kato H, Suzuki S, Tanaka N, Sano A, Sakai M, et al. 18 F-FAMT-PET is useful for the diagnosis of lymph node metastasis in operable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3181–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Curado MP, Boyle P. Epidemiology of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma not related to tobacco or alcohol. Curr Opin Oncol. 2013;25:229–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Shah GV KK, Gandhi D, Parmar H, Mukherji SK. Squamous cell carcinoma: Initial diagnosis and staging with PET/CT. PET Clinics: Elsevier; 2008.

  91. Marur S, Forastiere AA. Head and neck cancer: changing epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:489–501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Chung MK, Jeong HS, Park SG, Jang JY, Son YI, Choi JY, et al. Metabolic tumor volume of [F-18]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography predicts short-term outcome to radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in pharyngeal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:5861–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Choi KH, Yoo IR, Han EJ, Kim YS, Na SJ, Sun DI, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume measure by 18 F-FDG PET/CT in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas treated by surgery. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;45:43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  94. La TH, Filion EJ, Turnbull BB, Chu JN, Lee P, Nguyen K, et al. Metabolic tumor volume predicts for recurrence and death in head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74:1335–41.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Chu KP, Murphy JD, La TH, Krakow TE, Iagaru A, Graves EE, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume and velocity in predicting head-and-neck cancer outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83:1521–7.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Yu H, Caldwell C, Mah K, Mozeg D. Coregistered FDG PET/CT-based textural characterization of head and neck cancer for radiation treatment planning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009;28:374–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Yu H, Caldwell C, Mah K, Poon I, Balogh J, MacKenzie R, et al. Automated radiation targeting in head-and-neck cancer using region-based texture analysis of PET and CT images. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75:618–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Henriksson E, Kjellen E, Wahlberg P, Ohlsson T, Wennerberg J, Brun E. 2-Deoxy-2-[18 F] fluoro-D-glucose uptake and correlation to intratumoral heterogeneity. Anticancer Res. 2007;27:2155–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Brizel DM. Head and neck cancer as a model for advances in imaging prognosis, early assessment, and posttherapy evaluation. Cancer J. 2011;17:159–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Srinivasan A, Mohan S, Mukherji SK. Biologic imaging of head and neck cancer: the present and the future. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33:586–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Menda Y, Ponto LLB, Dornfeld KJ, Tewson TJ, Watkins GL, Schultz MK, et al. Kinetic analysis of 3 ′-deoxy-3 ′-(18)F-fluorothymidine ((18)F-FLT) in head and neck cancer patients before and early after initiation of chemoradiation therapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1028–35.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Grigsby PW. Cervical and Uterine Cancer. In: Wahl RL, editor. Principles and Practice of PET and PET/CT. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. p. 348–54.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Kwee TC, Basu S, Saboury B, Ambrosini V, Torigian DA, Alavi A. A new dimension of FDG-PET interpretation: assessment of tumor biology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1158–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Kidd EA, Spencer CR, Huettner PC, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Rader JS, et al. Cervical cancer histology and tumor differentiation affect 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake. Cancer. 2009;115:3548–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Lin CT, Yen TC, Chang TC, Ng KK, Tsai CS, Ho KC, et al. Role of [18 F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in re-recurrent cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16:1994–2003.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Mirpour S, Mhlanga JC, Logeswaran P, Russo G, Mercier G, Subramaniam RM. The role of PET/CT in the management of cervical cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:W192–205.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Yoo J, Choi JY, Moon SH, Bae DS, Park SB, Choe YS, et al. Prognostic significance of volume-based metabolic parameters in uterine cervical cancer determined using 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:1226–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. El Naqa I, Grigsby P, Apte A, Kidd E, Donnelly E, Khullar D, et al. Exploring feature-based approaches in PET images for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. Pattern Recognit. 2009;42:1162–71.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Kidd EA, El Naqa I, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. FDG-PET-based prognostic nomograms for locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127:136–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Kidd EA, Grigsby PW. Intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity of cervical cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:5236–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Yang F, Thomas MA, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW. Temporal analysis of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity characterized by textural features in cervical cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:716–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Schuetz M, Schmid MP, Potter R, Kommata S, Georg D, Lukic D, et al. Evaluating repetitive 18 F-fluoroazomycin-arabinoside (18FAZA) PET in the setting of MRI guided adaptive radiotherapy in cervical cancer. Acta Oncol. 2010;49:941–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW, Lewis JS, Laforest R, Siegel BA, Welch MJ. Assessing tumor hypoxia in cervical cancer by PET with 60Cu-labeled diacetyl-bis(N4-methylthiosemicarbazone). J Nucl Med. 2008;49:201–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Grigsby PW, Malyapa RS, Higashikubo R, Schwarz JK, Welch MJ, Huettner PC, et al. Comparison of molecular markers of hypoxia and imaging with (60)Cu-ATSM in cancer of the uterine cervix. Mol Imaging Biol. 2007;9:278–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Schoder H, Noy A, Gonen M, Weng L, Green D, Erdi YE, et al. Intensity of 18fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography distinguishes between indolent and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4643–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Ngeow JY, Quek RH, Ng DC, Hee SW, Tao M, Lim LC, et al. High SUV uptake on FDG-PET/CT predicts for an aggressive B-cell lymphoma in a prospective study of primary FDG-PET/CT staging in lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1543–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Karam M, Ata A, Irish K, Feustel PJ, Mottaghy FM, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan may identify mantle cell lymphoma patients with unusually favorable outcome. Nucl Med Commun. 2009;30:770–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Cazaentre T, Morschhauser F, Vermandel M, Betrouni N, Prangere T, Steinling M, et al. Pre-therapy 18 F-FDG PET quantitative parameters help in predicting the response to radioimmunotherapy in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:494–504.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Shinya T, Fujii S, Asakura S, Taniguchi T, Yoshio K, Alafate A, et al. Dual-time-point F-18 FDG PET/CT for evaluation in patients with malignant lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26:616–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Watabe T, Tatsumi M, Watabe H, Isohashi K, Kato H, Yanagawa M, et al. Intratumoral heterogeneity of F-18 FDG uptake differentiates between gastrointestinal stromal tumors and abdominal malignant lymphomas on PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26:222–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Kong FL, Ford RJ, Yang DJ. Managing lymphoma with non-FDG radiotracers: current clinical and preclinical applications. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:626910.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Eary J. Sarcomas. In: Wahl RL, editor. Principles and Practice of PET and PET/CT. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. p. 392–401.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Folpe AL, Lyles RH, Sprouse JT, Conrad III EU, Eary JF. (F-18) fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as a predictor of pathologic grade and other prognostic variables in bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6:1279–87.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Hain SF, O’Doherty MJ, Bingham J, Chinyama C, Smith MA. Can FDG PET be used to successfully direct preoperative biopsy of soft tissue tumours? Nucl Med Commun. 2003;24:1139–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Ioannidis JPA, Lau J. F-18-FDG PET for the diagnosis and grading of soft-tissue sarcoma: A meta-analysis. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:717–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Schulte M, Brecht-Krauss D, Heymer B, Guhlmann A, Hartwig E, Sarkar MR, et al. Grading of tumors and tumorlike lesions of bone: Evaluation by FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1695–701.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Eary JF, O’Sullivan F, O’Sullivan J, Conrad EU. Spatial heterogeneity in sarcoma (18)F-FDG uptake as a predictor of patient outcome. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1973–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. O’Sullivan F, Wolsztynski E, O’Sullivan J, Richards T, Conrad EU, Eary JF. A statistical modeling approach to the analysis of spatial patterns of FDG-PET uptake in human sarcoma. Med Imaging IEEE Trans. 2011;30:2059–71.

    Google Scholar 

  129. O’Sullivan F, Roy S, O’Sullivan J, Vernon C, Eary J. Incorporation of tumor shape into an assessment of spatial heterogeneity for human sarcomas imaged with FDG-PET. Biostatistics. 2005;6:293–301.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Okazumi S, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Schwarzbach MHM, Strauss LG. Quantitative, dynamic 18 F-FDG-PET for the evaluation of soft tissue sarcomas: Relation to differential diagnosis, tumor grading and prediction of prognosis. Hell J Nucl Med. 2009;12:223–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Buck AK, Herrmann K. zum Bueschenfelde CM, Juweid ME, Bischoff M, Glatting G et al. Imaging bone and soft tissue tumors with the proliferation marker [F-18]fluorodeoxythymidine. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:2970–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Tateishi U, Yamaguchi U, Maeda T, Seki K, Terauchi T, Kawai A, et al. Staging performance of carbon-11 choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma: Comparison with conventional imaging. Cancer Sci. 2006;97:1125–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Rasey JS, Koh WJ, Evans ML, Peterson LM, Lewellen TK, Graham MM, et al. Quantifying regional hypoxia in human tumors with positron emission tomography of [F-18]fluoromisonidazole: A pretherapy study of 37 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;36:417–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Rajendran JG, Krohn KA. Imaging hypoxia and angiogenesis in tumors. Radiol Clin North Am. 2005;43:169–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Rajendran JG, Wilson DC, Conrad EU, Peterson LM, Bruckner JD, Rasey JS, et al. [F-18]FMISO and [F-18]FDG PET imaging in soft tissue sarcomas: correlation of hypoxia, metabolism and VEGF expression. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:695–704.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Willaime JM, Turkheimer FE, Kenny LM, Aboagye EO. Quantification of intra-tumour cell proliferation heterogeneity using imaging descriptors of 18 F fluorothymidine-positron emission tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:187–203.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Salamon J, Derlin T, Bannas P, Busch JD, Herrmann J, Bockhorn M, et al. Evaluation of intratumoural heterogeneity on (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT for characterization of peripheral nerve sheath tumours in neurofibromatosis type 1. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:685–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

Muhammad Kashif Rahim, Sung Eun Kim, Hyeongryul So, Hyung Jun Kim, Gi Jeong Cheon, Eun Seong Lee, Keon Wook Kang, and Dong Soo Lee declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fellowship of Koh Chang Soon Program, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Muhammad Kashif Rahim

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Multan Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy, Nishtar Medical College and Hospital, Multan, Pakistan

    Muhammad Kashif Rahim

  3. Elective Course of Medical Education Program, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Sung Eun Kim, Hyeongryul So & Hyung Jun Kim

  4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehangro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea

    Muhammad Kashif Rahim, Gi Jeong Cheon, Eun Seong Lee, Keon Wook Kang & Dong Soo Lee

Authors
  1. Muhammad Kashif Rahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sung Eun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hyeongryul So
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hyung Jun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gi Jeong Cheon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eun Seong Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Keon Wook Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Dong Soo Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gi Jeong Cheon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rahim, M.K., Kim, S.E., So, H. et al. Recent Trends in PET Image Interpretations Using Volumetric and Texture-based Quantification Methods in Nuclear Oncology. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48, 1–15 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-013-0260-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-013-0260-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation