Evaluation of different normalization procedures for the calculation of the standardized uptake value in therapy response monitoring studies

ObjectivesThe aim of this prospective study was to assess the influence of different normalization procedures on relative changes in standardized uptake values (SUV) of 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for the assessment of chemotherapy response in patients with colorectal carcinoma (CRC) and nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). MethodsIn 97 patients with CRC (n = 48) and NSCLC (n = 49), FDG-PET was performed before and during the course of chemotherapy. Relative changes in SUV (ΔSUV) were determined after correction for injected dose and bodyweight, lean body mass, body surface area or a combination of bodyweight and plasma glucose. The predictive value for overall and progression-free survival with respect to the different normalized ΔSUVs was assessed. ResultsIn both CRC and NSCLC, no differences were seen in the degree of change between the four SUV-normalizations during chemotherapy. Cox regression analysis for overall survival showed significant hazard ratios of 1.14–1.16 per 10% SUV change in CRC and 1.10–1.13 in NSCLC and for progression-free survival hazard ratios of 1.15 per 10% ΔSUV change in CRC and 1.10–1.12 in NSCLC. ConclusionRelative changes in SUV is a strong predictor for survival in both CRC and NSCLC. None of the four normalization methods showed statistical advantage over the other. Therefore, simplifying the methods for analysis of FDG-PET data can improve the incorporation of FDG-PET in clinical treatment–response monitoring and may facilitate application in multicentre trials.

[1]  Otto S Hoekstra,et al.  Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  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.

[3]  A. Scott,et al.  The expanding role of PET technology in the management of patients with colorectal cancer. , 2007, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[4]  W. Oyen,et al.  FDG-PET for prediction of survival of patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. , 2006, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[5]  R. Coleman,et al.  The prognostic significance of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma , 1998, Cancer.

[6]  T. Hickish,et al.  Noninvasive monitoring of tumor metabolism using fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography in colorectal cancer liver metastases: correlation with tumor response to fluorouracil. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  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.

[8]  W. Oyen,et al.  Chemotherapy Response Evaluation with 18F-FDG PET in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[9]  L M Hamberg,et al.  The dose uptake ratio as an index of glucose metabolism: useful parameter or oversimplification? , 1994, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[10]  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.

[11]  W. Oyen,et al.  Predictive and prognostic value of FDG‐PET in nonsmall‐cell lung cancer , 2007, Cancer.

[12]  S. Marnitz,et al.  Value of 18F-Fluoro-2-Deoxy-d-Glucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer for Prediction of Pathologic Response and Times to Relapse after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy , 2006, Clinical Cancer Research.

[13]  Y. Erdi,et al.  Standardized uptake value in pediatric patients: an investigation to determine the optimum measurement parameter , 2001, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[14]  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.

[15]  Y. Menda,et al.  Evaluation of various corrections to the standardized uptake value for diagnosis of pulmonary malignancy , 2001, Nuclear medicine communications.

[16]  Yukiko Arisaka,et al.  18F-FDG uptake as a biologic prognostic factor for recurrence in patients with surgically resected non-small cell lung cancer. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

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

[18]  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.

[19]  L. Strauss,et al.  PET-FDG as predictor of therapy response in patients with colorectal carcinoma. , 2003, The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology.

[20]  D. Lee,et al.  Determination of the prognostic value of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by using positron emission tomography in patients with non-small cell lung cancer , 2002, Nuclear medicine communications.

[21]  S. Larson,et al.  Preoperative F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography maximal standardized uptake value predicts survival after lung cancer resection. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  K. Forster,et al.  [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography predicts outcome of non-small-cell lung cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  F. Frizelle,et al.  The Role of Positron Emission Tomography in the Management of Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: A Review , 2007, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[24]  W. Oyen,et al.  Chemotherapy response evaluation with FDG-PET in patients with colorectal cancer. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[25]  Leyun Pan,et al.  Prediction of Short-term Survival in Patients with Advanced Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Following Chemotherapy Based on 2-Deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose-Positron Emission Tomography: A Feasibility Study , 2007, Molecular Imaging and Biology.

[26]  P. Dupont,et al.  Potential use of FDG-PET scan after induction chemotherapy in surgically staged IIIa-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective pilot study. The Leuven Lung Cancer Group. , 1998, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[27]  C. Dooms,et al.  Positron-emission tomography in prognostic and therapeutic assessment of lung cancer: systematic review. , 2004, The Lancet. Oncology.

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

[29]  P. Dupont,et al.  Prognostic importance of the standardized uptake value on (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography scan in non-small-cell lung cancer: An analysis of 125 cases. Leuven Lung Cancer Group. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[30]  A. Lammertsma,et al.  Monitoring response to therapy in cancer using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose and positron emission tomography: an overview of different analytical methods , 2000, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[31]  Cyrill Burger,et al.  Prognostic aspects of 18F-FDG PET kinetics in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma receiving FOLFOX chemotherapy. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

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

[33]  M. O'Doherty,et al.  [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and its prognostic value in lung cancer. , 2000, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[34]  P. Valk,et al.  Whole-body PET imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in management of recurrent colorectal cancer. , 1999, Archives of surgery.

[35]  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.

[36]  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.

[37]  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.

[38]  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.

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

[40]  M. Schwaiger,et al.  Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[41]  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.