Dynamic and Static Approaches to Quantifying 18F-FDG Uptake for Measuring Cancer Response to Therapy, Including the Effect of Granulocyte CSF

The response of cancer to chemotherapy can be quantified using 18F-FDG to indicate changes in tumor metabolism. Quantification using the standardized uptake value (SUV) is more feasible for clinical practice than is the metabolic rate of 18F-FDG (MRFDG), which requires longer, dynamic scanning. The relationship between MRFDG and SUV depends in part on how each accounts for blood clearance of tracer. We tested whether chemotherapy and treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (CSF) changed the blood clearance curves and therefore affected the relationship between MRFDG and SUV. Methods: Thirty-nine patients with locally advanced breast cancer underwent 18F-FDG PET before and after chemotherapy, including granulocyte CSF. The area under the curve (AUC) for blood clearance was determined before and after therapy. MRFDGs were determined by graphical analyses, whereas SUVs were calculated using the standard formula normalized by body weight. MRFDG and SUVs were compared with each other and with tumor response. Paired percentage changes in MRFDG and SUV were also divided into tertiles based on pretherapy SUV to investigate differences in the relative sensitivity of SUV changes to MRFDG changes due to baseline tumor uptake. Results: Despite a small but statistically significant 6% decrease in blood AUCs after therapy (P = 0.02), SUV and MRFDG did not differ significantly in slope (P = 0.53) or in correlation before and after therapy (r = 0.95 for both). Percentage changes in MRFDG and SUV between serial scans correlated with each other (r = 0.84) and with patient response (P ≤ 0.06). The maximum detectable percentage change in SUV and the slope of percentage changes in MRFDG versus SUV for the patient tertile with the lowest baseline SUVs (65% ± 5% [±SE], slope (m) = 0.40 ± 0.12, n = 13) were significantly lower than for the other patients (86% ± 3%, m = 0.85 ± 0.10, n = 26, P = 0.01 for both). Conclusion: Chemotherapy and granulocyte CSF treatment resulted in a lower 18F-FDG blood AUC. The maximum detectable percentage change in 18F-FDG uptake is less when quantifying via static SUV than via dynamic MRFDG. This effect is small in most patients but may have clinical significance for measuring the response of patients with a low pretherapy 18F-FDG uptake.

[1]  Fiona J. Gilbert,et al.  Monitoring primary breast cancer throughout chemotherapy using FDG-PET , 2007, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[2]  R L Wahl,et al.  Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. , 1993, Radiology.

[3]  Robert B Livingston,et al.  Changes in blood flow and metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. , 2003, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[4]  J. Keyes SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? , 1995, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  Wolfgang A. Weber,et al.  Monitoring chemotherapy and radiotherapy of solid tumors , 2006, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[6]  Adriaan A. Lammertsma,et al.  Measuring [18F]FDG uptake in breast cancer during chemotherapy: comparison of analytical methods , 2003, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[7]  R. Livingston,et al.  Dose-dense anthracycline-based chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  C S Patlak,et al.  Graphical Evaluation of Blood-to-Brain Transfer Constants from Multiple-Time Uptake Data , 1983, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[9]  Robert B Livingston,et al.  Blood flow and metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer: relationship to response to therapy. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[10]  Sung-Cheng Huang,et al.  Anatomy of SUV , 2000 .

[11]  S C Huang,et al.  Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value. , 2000, Nuclear medicine and biology.

[12]  Mark Muzi,et al.  Quantitative positron emission tomography imaging to measure tumor response to therapy: what is the best method? , 2003, Molecular imaging and biology : MIB : the official publication of the Academy of Molecular Imaging.

[13]  M. Graham,et al.  Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake. , 2000, Nuclear medicine and biology.

[14]  G. Peters,et al.  Positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-[18F]-fluoro-D-glucose for response monitoring in locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer; a comparison of different analytical methods. , 2003, Molecular imaging and biology : MIB : the official publication of the Academy of Molecular Imaging.

[15]  E. Hoffman,et al.  Tomographic measurement of local cerebral glucose metabolic rate in humans with (F‐18)2‐fluoro‐2‐deoxy‐D‐glucose: Validation of method , 1979, Annals of neurology.

[16]  Joel Karp,et al.  Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[17]  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.

[18]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[19]  Mark Muzi,et al.  18F-FDG kinetics in locally advanced breast cancer: correlation with tumor blood flow and changes in response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[20]  Albert Gjedde,et al.  Calculation of cerebral glucose phosphorylation from brain uptake of glucose analogs in vivo: A re-examination , 1982, Brain Research Reviews.

[21]  E. Hoffman,et al.  TOMOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENT OF LOCAL CEREBRAL GLUCOSE METABOLIC RATE IN HUMANS WITH (F‐18)2‐FLUORO-2‐DEOXY-D‐GLUCOSE: VALIDATION OF METHOD , 1980, Annals of neurology.

[22]  S. Libutti,et al.  Comparison of SUV and Patlak slope for monitoring of cancer therapy using serial PET scans , 2002, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[23]  Johan Nuyts,et al.  Methods to monitor response to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[24]  R. Wahl,et al.  Effects of pegfilgrastim on normal biodistribution of 18F-FDG: preclinical and clinical studies. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[25]  C. D. Arnett,et al.  Glucose Metabolic Rate Kinetic Model Parameter Determination in Humans: The Lumped Constants and Rate Constants for [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose and [11C]Deoxyglucose , 1985, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[26]  R. Wahl,et al.  Splenic fluorodeoxyglucose uptake increased by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor therapy: PET imaging results. , 1999, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[27]  Adriaan A. Lammertsma,et al.  How should we analyse FDG PET studies for monitoring tumour response? , 2006, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.