Journal List > Prog Med Phys > v.24(3) > 1098386

TOOLS
Park, Kim, Cho, Kong, Park, and Cho: Enhancement of the Early/Precise Diagnosis Based on the Measurement of SUVs in F-18 FDG PET/CT Whole-body Image
Original Article

Progress in Medical Physics 2013;24(3):176-182.

Published online: 17 September 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2013.24.3.176

Enhancement of the Early/Precise Diagnosis Based on the Measurement of SUVs in F-18 FDG PET/CT Whole-body Image

Jeong-Kyu Park∗, Sung Kyu Kim†, Ihn-Ho Cho‡, Eun-Jung Kong‡, Myeong-Hwan Park∗, Bok-Yeon Cho§

∗Department of Radiologic Technology, Daegu Health College, Daegu, Korea

†Department of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea

‡Department of Nuclear Medicine, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea

§Department of Radiology, Soonchunhyang University of Hospital Gumi, Gumi, Korea

Copyright © 2013 Korean Society of Medical Physics

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Through this research, we measure the data for several SUVs such as SUVLBM, SUVBW, and SUVBSA using volume of interest in order to enhance the diagnostic level in whole-body image for healthy examinees via F-18 FDG PET/CT. Maximum value, mean value, standard deviation, and threshold value for each SUVs are shown. The measurement of SUVs are carried out with 31 examinees who have taken whole-body examination with F-18 FDG PET/CT from July, 2012 to August, 2012. To secure the preciseness of measurement, we selected 26 healthy examinees as a subject of measurement according to diagnostic view of a nuclear-medical doctor. We see from the measurement of SUVs of PET/CT that the value of SUVBW is hightest and followed by SUVLBM and SUVBSA in turn regardless of the use of contrast media. By comparing the SUVLBM-maximum data for the group used contrast media with those for the group used no contrast media, there found a trend that the measured values increase when the contrast media are used. Among them, liver, aorta, lumbar-5, and Cerebellum exhibit significant difference (p＜0.05). We conclude that our data for SUVs would be basic references in overall image interpretation, and hope that the research using VOI would be active.

Keywords: F-18 FDG PET/CT, VOI, SUVs, Contrast media

REFERENCES

1. Park SY. Consideration on the satisfaction of patients and Variation according to whether or not to listen to music after F-18 FDG Injection. The Graduate School of Bio-Medical Science, Korea University. 2013.
2. Oriuchi N, Higuchi T, Ishikita T, et al. Present role and future prospects of positron emission tomography in clinical oncology. Cancer Sci. 97(12):1291–1297. 2006.
crossref
3. Hany TF, Steinert HC, Thomas F. Integrated PET/CT: current applications and future direction. Radiology. 238::. (1):405–422. 2006.
4. Benamor M, Ollivier L, Brisse H, Moulin R, Servois V, Neuenschwander S. The clinical role of CT/PET in oncology: an update. Cancer Imaging. 5::. (8):68–75. 2005.
crossref
5. Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. The Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 44::. (9):1200–1209. 2013.
6. Weber WA. Positron emission tomography as an imaging biomaker. J Clin Oncol. 24(20):3282–3292. 2006.
7. Czernin J, Allen M, Schelbert R. Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: Literature based evidence as of September. J Nucl Med. 48(1):78–88. 2007.
8. Tian M, Zhang H, Nakasone Y, Mogi K, Endo K. Expression of Glut-1 and Glut-3 in untreaed oral squamous cell carcinoma compared with FDG accumulation in a PET study. 31(1):5–12. 2004.
9. Tohma T, Okazumi S, Makino H, et al. Relationship between glucose transporter, hexokinase and FDG-PET in esophageal cancer. Hepato-Gastroenterol. 52::. (62):486–490. 2005.
10. Zincirkeser S, Şahin E, Halac M, Sageret S. Standardized uptake values of normal organs on 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography imaging. J Int Med Res. 35::. (2):231–236. 2007.
crossref
11. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 50(1):11–20. 2009.
crossref
12. Lee HS. A study for distortion of standardized uptake value according to the does and lesion size using 18F-FDG PET/CT. Graduates School Korea Univ. 2012.
13. Bushnell D, Madsen M, Menda Y, et al. Evaluation of various corrections to the standardized uptake value for diagnosis of pulmonary malignancy. Nucl Med Common. 22(1):1077–1081. 2001.
14. Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology. 189::. (1):847–850. 1993.
15. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. JNM. 50::. (1):122–149. 2009.
crossref
16. Eiber M, Martinez-Möller A, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Value of a Dixon-based MRI/PET attenuation correction sequence for the localization and evaluation of PET-positive lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 38::. (5):1691–1701. 2011.
17. Boellaard R, O'Doherty Mike J, Weber Wolfgang A, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 37::. (10):181–200. 2010.

Fig. 1.
Measurements of SUVs in the PET/CT.
pmp-24-176f1.tif
Table 1.
Non contrast media, PET/CT of SUVS.
  SUV LBM SUV BW SUV BSA
Max Mean SD Threshold % Max Mean SD Threshold % Max Mean SD Threshold %
PET/CT
Cerebellu m 5.7±1.0 4.66±0.9 0.58±0.2 2.24±0.4 39.11±2.3 7.63±1.4 6.21±1.2 0.77±0.2 2.98±0.5 39.11±2.3 2.10±0.3 1.71±0.3 0.21±0.0 0.82±0.1 39.11±2.3
Liver 2.0±0.3 1.63±0.2 0.17±0.0 0.81±0.1 40.11±0.3 2.69±0.3 2.17±0.2 0.23±0.0 1.08±0.1 40.11±0.3 0.74±0.8 0.60±0.0 0.06±0.0 0.30±0.0 40.11±0.3
Spleen 1.5±0.1 1.27±0.1 0.13±0.0 0.63±0.0 39.77±0.6 2.11±0.1 1.69±0.1 0.18±0.0 0.84±0.0 39.77±0.6 0.58±0.0 0.47±0.0 0.05±0.0 0.23±0.0 39.77±0.6
Aorta 1.3±0.1 1.10±0.1 0.11±0.0 0.55±0.0 40.22±0.6 1.84±0.2 1.47±0.1 0.15±0.0 0.73±0.1 40.22±0.6 0.50±0.0 0.41±0.0 0.04±0.0 0.20±0.0 40.22±0.6
L-1 1.9±0.4 1.59±0.3 0.18±0.0 0.78±0.1 40.11±1.7 2.58±0.5 2.11±0.4 0.24±0.0 1.03±0.2 40.11±1.7 0.71±0.1 0.58±0.1 0.06±0.0 0.28±0.0 40.11±1.7
L-2 1.90±0.40 1.55±0.3 0.16±0.0 0.77±0.1 40.55±1.6 2.53±0.5 2.07±0.4 0.22±0.0 1.02±0.2 40.55±1.6 0.70±0.1 0.57±0.0 0.06±0.0 0.28±0.0 40.55±1.6
L-3 1.81±0.40 1.43±0.3 0.16±0.0 0.71±0.1 39.44±1.4 2.42±0.5 1.92±0.5 0.22±0.0 0.95±0.2 39.44±1.4 0.66±0.1 0.52±0.1 0.06±0.0 0.26±0.0 39.44±1.4
L-5 0.72±0.00 0.53±0.0 0.08±0.0 0.28±0.0 39.44±1.6 0.97±0.1 0.71±0.1 0.11±0.0 0.38±0.0 39.44±1.6 0.27±0.0 0.19±0.0 0.03±0.0 0.10±0.0 39.44±1.6
Table 2.
Contrast media, PET/CT of SUVs.
  SUV LBM SUV BW SUV BSA
Max Mean SD Threshold % Max Mean SD Threshold % Max Mean SD Threshold %
PET/CT
Cerebellum 5.90±1.2 4.75±0.9 0.68±0.1 2.36±0.4 39.92±0.4 7.93±1.5 6.38±1.1 0.91±0.2 3.17±0.6 39.92±0.4 2.19±0.3 1.76±0.2 0.25±0.0 0.87±0.1 39.92±0.4
Liver 1.93±0.2 1.56±0.1 0.14±0.0 0.76±0.1 37.22±10.2 2.62±0.4 2.11±0.2 0.19±0.0 1.04±0.1 39.71±1.2 0.72±0.0 0.58±0.0 0.05±0.0 0.28±0.0 39.71±1.2
Spleen 1.56±0.2 1.26±0.2 0.13±0.0 0.61±0.1 39.68±1.0 2.10±0.3 1.71±0.3 0.17±0.0 0.83±0.1 39.57±0.9 0.58±0.1 0.48±0.1 0.04±0.0 0.23±0.0 39.57±0.9
Aorta 1.40±0.2 1.10±0.1 0.12±0.0 0.56±0.0 40.00±1.0 1.81±0.2 1.44±0.1 0.15±0.0 0.72±0.0 39.78±0.8 0.50±0.0 0.40±0.0 0.04±0.0 0.20±0.0 39.78±0.8
L-1 1.69±0.4 1.33±0.2 0.16±0.0 0.67±0.1 39.66±0.8 2.19±0.7 1.71±0.4 0.22±0.1 0.86±0.2 39.85±0.3 0.64±0.1 0.50±0.1 0.06±0.0 0.25±0.0 39.85±0.3
L-2 1.90±1.2 1.48±0.8 0.23±0.2 0.77±0.5 40.66±2.5 2.65±1.9 2.05±1.2 0.32±0.4 1.07±0.7 40.78±2.6 0.72±0.4 0.56±0.3 0.08±0.1 0.29±0.1 40.78±2.6
L-3 1.63±0.3 1.29±0.2 0.15±0.0 0.65±0.1 40.12±0.5 2.18±0.4 1.71±0.3 0.21±0.0 0.87±0.1 40.14±0.5 0.60±0.1 0.47±0.0 0.05±0.0 0.24±0.0 40.14±0.5
L-5 0.65±0.1 0.53±0.0 0.05±0.0 0.26±0.0 40.06±2.9 0.85±0.1 0.68±0.0 0.07±0.0 0.34±0.0 40.07±3.2 0.23±0.0 0.19±0.0 0.02±0.0 0.09±0.0 40.07±3.2
Table 3.
Paired samples test of SUVLBM-maximum.
  Paired differences
Mean SD Std. error mean 95% confidence interval of the difference t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Lower Upper
Pair1 CM-Liver −0.36000 0.60105 0.11787 −0.60277 −0.11723 −3.054 25 0.005
Pair2 CM-Spleen 0.03231 0.58245 0.11423 −0.20295 0.26757 0.283 25 0.780
Pair3 CM-Aorta 0.22423 0.51760 0.10151 0.01517 0.43330 2.209 25 0.037
Pair4 CM-L1 −0.18000 0.73771 0.14468 −0.47797 0.11797 −1.244 25 0.225
Pair5 CM-L2 −0.29500 1.10355 0.21642 −0.74073 0.15073 −1.363 25 0.185
Pair6 CM-L3 −0.07500 0.66106 0.12964 −0.34201 0.19201 −0.579 25 0.568
Pair7 CM-L5 0.93269 0.53849 0.10561 0.71519 1.15019 8.832 25 0.000
Pair8 CM-Cerebellum −4.11570 1.16120 0.22773 −4.58470 −3.64675 −18.073 25 0.000

CM: contrast media.

TOOLS
Similar articles