Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies
- PMID: 19759105
- DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.063347
Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies
Abstract
(18)F-FDG PET is often used to monitor tumor response in multicenter oncology clinical trials. This study assessed the repeatability of several semiquantitative standardized uptake values (mean SUV [SUV(mean)], maximum SUV [SUV(max)], peak SUV [SUV(peak)], and the 3-dimensional isocontour at 70% of the maximum pixel value [SUV(70%)]) as measured by repeated baseline (18)F-FDG PET studies in a multicenter phase I oncology trial.
Methods: Double-baseline (18)F-FDG PET studies were acquired for 62 sequentially enrolled patients. Tumor metabolic activity was assessed by SUV(mean), SUV(max), SUV(peak), and SUV(70%). The effect on SUV repeatability of compliance with recommended image-acquisition guidelines and quality assurance (QA) standards was assessed. Summary statistics for absolute differences relative to the average of baseline values and repeatability analysis were performed for all patients and for a subgroup that passed QA, in both a multi- and a single-observer setting. Intrasubject precision of baseline measurements was assessed by repeatability coefficients, intrasubject coefficients of variation (CV), and confidence intervals on mean baseline differences for all SUV parameters.
Results: The mean differences between the 2 SUV baseline measurements were small, varying from -2.1% to 1.9%, and the 95% confidence intervals for these mean differences had a maximum half-width of about 5.6% across the SUV parameters assessed. For SUV(max), the intrasubject CV varied from 10.7% to 12.8% for the QA multi- and single-observer datasets and was 16% for the full dataset. The 95% repeatability coefficients ranged from -28.4% to 39.6% for the QA datasets and up to -34.3% to 52.3% for the full dataset.
Conclusion: Repeatability results of double-baseline (18)F-FDG PET scans were similar for all SUV parameters assessed, for both the full and the QA datasets, in both the multi- and the single-observer settings. Centralized quality assurance and analysis of data improved intrasubject CV from 15.9% to 10.7% for averaged SUV(max). Thresholds for metabolic response in the multicenter multiobserver non-QA settings were -34% and 52% and in the range of -26% to 39% with centralized QA. These results support the use of (18)F-FDG PET for tumor assessment in multicenter oncology clinical trials.
Similar articles
-
Quantitative analysis of response to treatment with erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer using 18F-FDG and 3'-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine PET.J Nucl Med. 2011 Dec;52(12):1871-7. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.111.094458. Epub 2011 Nov 7. J Nucl Med. 2011. PMID: 22065872 Clinical Trial.
-
Repeatability of 18F-FDG uptake measurements in tumors: a metaanalysis.J Nucl Med. 2012 May;53(5):701-8. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.111.095299. Epub 2012 Apr 10. J Nucl Med. 2012. PMID: 22496583
-
Repeatability of metabolically active tumor volume measurements with FDG PET/CT in advanced gastrointestinal malignancies: a multicenter study.Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2):539-48. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14132807. Epub 2014 May 26. Radiology. 2014. PMID: 24865311 Clinical Trial.
-
Repeatability of SUV in Oncologic 18F-FDG PET.J Nucl Med. 2017 Apr;58(4):523-532. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.116.186353. Epub 2017 Feb 23. J Nucl Med. 2017. PMID: 28232605 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The role of ¹⁸F-FDG PET imaging in upper gastrointestinal malignancies.Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2014 Sep;15(3):351-64. doi: 10.1007/s11864-014-0301-9. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2014. PMID: 25064175 Review.
Cited by
-
Repeatability of Quantitative 18F-NaF PET: A Multicenter Study.J Nucl Med. 2016 Dec;57(12):1872-1879. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.116.177295. Epub 2016 Jul 21. J Nucl Med. 2016. PMID: 27445292 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment.Stat Methods Med Res. 2015 Feb;24(1):27-67. doi: 10.1177/0962280214537344. Epub 2014 Jun 11. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015. PMID: 24919831 Free PMC article. Review.
-
FDG PET/CT for Assessment of Immune Therapy: Opportunities and Understanding Pitfalls.Semin Nucl Med. 2020 Nov;50(6):518-531. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2020.06.001. Epub 2020 Jun 28. Semin Nucl Med. 2020. PMID: 33059821 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Design considerations for using PET as a response measure in single site and multicenter clinical trials.Acad Radiol. 2012 Feb;19(2):184-90. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.008. Epub 2011 Nov 21. Acad Radiol. 2012. PMID: 22104290 Free PMC article.
-
Importance of quantification for the analysis of PET data in oncology: review of current methods and trends for the future.Mol Imaging Biol. 2012 Apr;14(2):131-46. doi: 10.1007/s11307-011-0514-2. Mol Imaging Biol. 2012. PMID: 21842339 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources