Detection and Characterization of Tumor Changes in 18F-FDG PET Patient Monitoring Using Parametric Imaging

In PET-based patient monitoring, metabolic tumor changes occurring between PET scans are most often assessed visually or by measuring only a few parameters (tumor volume or uptake), neglecting most of the image content. We propose and evaluate a parametric imaging (PI) method to assess tumor changes at the voxel level. Methods: Seventy-eight pairs of tumor images obtained from baseline and follow-up 18F-FDG PET/CT for 28 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were considered. For each pair, after CT-based registration of the PET volumes, the 2 PET datasets were subtracted. A biparametric graph of subtracted voxel values versus voxel values in the first PET scan was obtained. A model-based analysis of this graph was used to identify the tumor voxels in which significant changes occurred between the 2 scans and yielded indices characterizing these changes. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) based on the CT images obtained 5–8 wk after the second PET/CT scan were used to classify tumor masses as responding or progressive. On the basis of this classification, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of PI and an approach based on recommendations from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Results: For tumor-based classification, the EORTC-based approach had a sensitivity and specificity of 85% and 52%, respectively, for detecting responding lesions, whereas PI had a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 53%, respectively. None of responding tumors using RECIST was classified as progressive with the PI or EORTC-based criteria. Among the 14 progressive lesions according to RECIST, 12 were identified as progressive with PI whereas EORTC-based criteria classified only 1 as progressive and 13 as stable tumors. Considering the patient-based classification, none of the responders according to RECIST was classified as having progressive disease with the PI and EORTC-based criteria. PI has the advantage of showing a parametric image of the patient response to therapy, indicating potential heterogeneity in tumor response. Conclusion: The PI method has been successfully applied to characterize early metabolic tumor changes in 78 lesions from 18F-FDG PET/CT scans of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer during chemotherapy. The PI findings correlated well with the standard RECIST-based response assessment.

[1]  H. Malcolm Hudson,et al.  Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[2]  Eileen O. Smith,et al.  Difference images calculated from ictal and interictal technetium-99m-HMPAO SPECT scans of epilepsy. , 1995, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  Gérard Govaert,et al.  Gaussian parsimonious clustering models , 1995, Pattern Recognit..

[4]  M. Sasaki,et al.  A clinical evaluation of FDG-PET to assess the response in radiation therapy for bronchogenic carcinoma , 1996, Annals of nuclear medicine.

[5]  K. Herholz,et al.  Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. , 1999, European journal of cancer.

[6]  M. van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  M Van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  David J. Hawkes,et al.  Voxel Similarity Measures for 3D Serial MR Brain Image Registration , 2000, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[9]  Sébastien Ourselin,et al.  Block Matching: A General Framework to Improve Robustness of Rigid Registration of Medical Images , 2000, MICCAI.

[10]  A. Fischman,et al.  Dose-response relationship between probability of pathologic tumor control and glucose metabolic rate measured with FDG PET after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  Danny Rischin,et al.  Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography scanning for response-assessment after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  R. Boellaard,et al.  Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  M. Schwaiger,et al.  Comparison of different SUV-based methods for monitoring cytotoxic therapy with FDG PET , 2004, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[14]  Wolfgang A Weber,et al.  Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  Gérard Govaert,et al.  Model-based cluster and discriminant analysis with the MIXMOD software , 2006, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[16]  R. Wahl,et al.  From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[17]  S. Ben-Haim,et al.  18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in the Evaluation of Cancer Treatment Response* , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[18]  P. Flamen,et al.  Is positron emission tomography (PET) with FDG an early predictor of the RECIST morphological response to chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients (mCRC)? , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.