Reproducibility of 18F-FDG and 3′-Deoxy-3′-18F-Fluorothymidine PET Tumor Volume Measurements

The objective of this study was to establish the repeatability and reproducibility limits of several volume-related PET image–derived indices—namely tumor volume (TV), mean standardized uptake value, total glycolytic volume (TGV), and total proliferative volume (TPV)—relative to those of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), commonly used in clinical practice. Methods: Fixed and adaptive thresholding, fuzzy C-means, and fuzzy locally adaptive Bayesian methodology were considered for TV delineation. Double-baseline 18F-FDG (17 lesions, 14 esophageal cancer patients) and 3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine (18F-FLT) (12 lesions, 9 breast cancer patients) PET scans, acquired at a mean interval of 4 d and before any treatment, were used for reproducibility evaluation. The repeatability of each method was evaluated for the same datasets and compared with manual delineation. Results: A negligible variability of less than 5% was measured for all segmentation approaches in comparison to manual delineation (5%–35%). SUVmax reproducibility levels were similar to others previously reported, with a mean percentage difference of 1.8% ± 16.7% and −0.9% ± 14.9% for the 18F-FDG and 18F-FLT lesions, respectively. The best TV, TGV, and TPV reproducibility limits ranged from −21% to 31% and −30% to 37% for 18F-FDG and 18F-FLT images, respectively, whereas the worst reproducibility limits ranged from −90% to 73% and −68% to 52%, respectively. Conclusion: The reproducibility of estimating TV, mean standardized uptake value, and derived TGV and TPV was found to vary among segmentation algorithms. Some differences between 18F-FDG and 18F-FLT scans were observed, mainly because of differences in overall image quality. The smaller reproducibility limits for volume-derived image indices were similar to those for SUVmax, suggesting that the use of appropriate delineation tools should allow the determination of tumor functional volumes in PET images in a repeatable and reproducible fashion.

[1]  R L Wahl,et al.  Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck , 2006 .

[2]  J. C. Dunn,et al.  A Fuzzy Relative of the ISODATA Process and Its Use in Detecting Compact Well-Separated Clusters , 1973 .

[3]  Anne Bol,et al.  Tri-dimensional automatic segmentation of PET volumes based on measured source-to-background ratios: influence of reconstruction algorithms. , 2003, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[4]  R. Hustinx,et al.  Within-patient variability of (18)F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  R. Boellaard,et al.  Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a Multicenter Phase I Study of Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Malignancies , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[6]  Roslyn J. Francis,et al.  Early Prediction of Response to Chemotherapy and Survival in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma Using a Novel Semiautomated 3-Dimensional Volume-Based Analysis of Serial 18F-FDG PET Scans , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[7]  John L. Humm,et al.  Tumor Treatment Response Based on Visual and Quantitative Changes in Global Tumor Glycolysis Using PET-FDG Imaging. The Visual Response Score and the Change in Total Lesion Glycolysis. , 1999, Clinical positron imaging : official journal of the Institute for Clinical P.E.T.

[8]  Tianzi Jiang,et al.  Automation segmentation of PET image for brain tumors , 2003, 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515).

[9]  D. Visvikis,et al.  PET functional volume segmentation: a robustness study , 2008, 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[10]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[11]  Sasa Mutic,et al.  18F-FDG PET definition of gross tumor volume for radiotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer: is a single standardized uptake value threshold approach appropriate? , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  Byung-Joo Lee,et al.  Measurement of tumor volume by PET to evaluate prognosis in patients with head and neck cancer treated by chemo-radiation therapy , 2010, Acta oncologica.

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

[14]  Abbes Amira,et al.  Fully automated segmentation of oncological PET volumes using a combined multiscale and statistical model. , 2007, Medical physics.

[15]  D. Visvikis,et al.  Influence of OSEM and segmented attenuation correction in the calculation of standardised uptake values for [18F]FDG PET , 2001, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[16]  Giovanni Lucignani,et al.  Doctor, what does my future hold? The prognostic value of FDG-PET in solid tumours , 2010, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[17]  Habib Zaidi,et al.  Segmentation of heterogeneous tumors in PET using a novel fuzzy C-means algorithm , 2009 .

[18]  Eric O. Aboagye,et al.  Imaging early changes in proliferation at 1 week post chemotherapy: a pilot study in breast cancer patients with 3′-deoxy-3′-[18F]fluorothymidine positron emission tomography , 2007, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[19]  Sasa Mutic,et al.  Concurrent multimodality image segmentation by active contours for radiotherapy treatment planning. , 2007, Medical physics.

[20]  S M Larson,et al.  Segmentation of lung lesion volume by adaptive positron emission tomography image thresholding , 1997, Cancer.

[21]  C. Rübe,et al.  Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-Small cell lung cancer. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[22]  Dimitris Visvikis,et al.  Accurate automatic delineation of heterogeneous functional volumes in positron emission tomography for oncology applications. , 2010, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[23]  Bruce D Cheson,et al.  Progress and Promise of FDG-PET Imaging for Cancer Patient Management and Oncologic Drug Development , 2005, Clinical Cancer Research.

[24]  Christian Roux,et al.  Automatic delineation of functional volumes in PET: A robustness study , 2009 .

[25]  Maximilien Vermandel,et al.  Pre-therapy 18F-FDG PET quantitative parameters help in predicting the response to radioimmunotherapy in non-Hodgkin lymphoma , 2010, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[26]  Claude Nahmias,et al.  Reproducibility of Standardized Uptake Value Measurements Determined by 18F-FDG PET in Malignant Tumors , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[27]  Adriaan A. Lammertsma,et al.  Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial , 2005, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[28]  M Schwaiger,et al.  Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG PET. , 1999, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[29]  Su Jin Lee,et al.  Prognostic Value of Metabolic Tumor Volume Measured by 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Patients with Esophageal Carcinoma , 2009, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[30]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[31]  Jeon Yeob Jang,et al.  Metabolic Tumor Volume of [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Predicts Short-Term Outcome to Radiotherapy With or Without Chemotherapy in Pharyngeal Cancer , 2009, Clinical Cancer Research.

[32]  Anne Bol,et al.  A gradient-based method for segmenting FDG-PET images: methodology and validation , 2007, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.