Impact of the Definition of Peak Standardized Uptake Value on Quantification of Treatment Response

PET-based treatment response assessment typically measures the change in maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), which is adversely affected by noise. Peak SUV (SUVpeak) has been recommended as a more robust alternative, but its associated region of interest (ROIpeak) is not uniquely defined. We investigated the impact of different ROIpeak definitions on quantification of SUVpeak and tumor response. Methods: Seventeen patients with solid malignancies were treated with a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor resulting in a variety of responses. Using the cellular proliferation marker 3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine (18F-FLT), whole-body PET/CT scans were acquired at baseline and during treatment. 18F-FLT–avid lesions (∼2/patient) were segmented on PET images, and tumor response was assessed via the relative change in SUVpeak. For each tumor, 24 different SUVpeaks were determined by changing ROIpeak shape (circles vs. spheres), size (7.5–20 mm), and location (centered on SUVmax vs. placed in highest-uptake region), encompassing different definitions from the literature. Within each tumor, variations in the 24 SUVpeaks and tumor responses were measured using coefficient of variation (CV), standardized deviation (SD), and range. For each ROIpeak definition, a population average SUVpeak and tumor response were determined over all tumors. Results: A substantial variation in both SUVpeak and tumor response resulted from changing the ROIpeak definition. The variable ROIpeak definition led to an intratumor SUVpeak variation ranging from 49% above to 46% below the mean (CV, 17%) and an intratumor SUVpeak response variation ranging from 49% above to 35% below the mean (SD, 9%). The variable ROIpeak definition led to a population average SUVpeak variation ranging from 24% above to 28% below the mean (CV, 14%) and a population average SUVpeak response variation ranging from only 3% above to 3% below the mean (SD, 2%). The size of ROIpeak caused more variation in intratumor response than did the location or shape of ROIpeak. Population average tumor response was independent of size, shape, and location of ROIpeak. Conclusion: Quantification of individual tumor response using SUVpeak is highly sensitive to the ROIpeak definition, which can significantly affect the use of SUVpeak for assessment of treatment response. Clinical trials are necessary to compare the efficacy of SUVpeak and SUVmax for quantification of response to therapy.

[1]  H. Hoekstra,et al.  [18F]FLT-PET in oncology: current status and opportunities , 2004, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[2]  J. Nährig,et al.  Positron emission tomography using [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose for monitoring primary chemotherapy in breast cancer. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  Yuji Nakamoto,et al.  Reproducibility of common semi-quantitative parameters for evaluating lung cancer glucose metabolism with positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose. , 2002, Molecular imaging and biology : MIB : the official publication of the Academy of Molecular Imaging.

[4]  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.

[5]  Elisabeth Kjellén,et al.  FDG PET studies during treatment: Prediction of therapy outcome in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma , 2002, Head & neck.

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

[7]  U. Haberkorn,et al.  A new precursor for the radiosynthesis of [18F]FLT. , 2002, Nuclear medicine and biology.

[8]  Michael E Phelps,et al.  Evaluation of thoracic tumors with 18F-fluorothymidine and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. , 2006, Chest.

[9]  J. Eary,et al.  [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts outcome for Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  T. Mattfeldt,et al.  Early assessment of therapy response in malignant lymphoma with the thymidine analogue [18F]FLT , 2007, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[11]  Falko Fend,et al.  Early Response Assessment Using 3′-Deoxy-3′-[18F]Fluorothymidine-Positron Emission Tomography in High-Grade Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma , 2007, Clinical Cancer Research.

[12]  R L Wahl,et al.  Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. , 1993, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  M Schwaiger,et al.  Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. , 1998, Blood.

[14]  Eric J. W. Visser,et al.  Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters , 2007, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

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

[16]  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.

[17]  J Nuyts,et al.  18FDG-Positron emission tomography for the early prediction of response in advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with imatinib mesylate (Glivec). , 2003, European journal of cancer.

[18]  Wei Chen,et al.  Predicting treatment response of malignant gliomas to bevacizumab and irinotecan by imaging proliferation with [18F] fluorothymidine positron emission tomography: a pilot study. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  W. Weber,et al.  PET for response assessment in oncology: radiotherapy and chemotherapy , 2005 .

[20]  Michael E. Phelps,et al.  Usefulness of 3′-[F-18]Fluoro-3′-deoxythymidine with Positron Emission Tomography in Predicting Breast Cancer Response to Therapy , 2005, Molecular Imaging and Biology.

[21]  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.

[22]  M. Schwaiger,et al.  Metabolic imaging predicts response, survival, and recurrence in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  T. Lehnert,et al.  Functional diagnosis of residual lymphomas after radiochemotherapy with positron emission tomography comparing FDG- and FLT-PET , 2007, Leukemia & lymphoma.

[24]  R L Wahl,et al.  Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake at PET. , 1995, Radiology.

[25]  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.

[26]  Wolfgang A Weber,et al.  PET to assess early metabolic response and to guide treatment of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: the MUNICON phase II trial. , 2007, The Lancet. Oncology.

[27]  Torsten Mattfeldt,et al.  Imaging proliferation in lung tumors with PET: 18F-FLT versus 18F-FDG. , 2003, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[28]  H. Dittmann,et al.  Early changes in [18F]FLT uptake after chemotherapy: an experimental study , 2002, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[29]  J. Yap,et al.  Impact of variations in SUV methods for assessing cancer response using FDG-PET , 2011 .