Assessing PET Parameters in Oncologic 18F-FDG Studies

被引:31
|
作者
Sarikaya, Ismet [1 ]
Sarikaya, Ali [2 ]
机构
[1] Kuwait Univ, Dept Nucl Med, Fac Med, Kuwait, Kuwait
[2] Trakya Univ, Dept Nucl Med, Fac Med, Edirne, Turkey
关键词
PET; parameter; F-18-FDG; oncology; SUV; POSITRON-EMISSION-TOMOGRAPHY; STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUES; METABOLIC TUMOR VOLUME; TOTAL LESION GLYCOLYSIS; LEAN BODY-MASS; PROGNOSTIC VALUE; FDG UPTAKE; PEDIATRIC-PATIENTS; RESPONSE CRITERIA; BREAST-CANCER;
D O I
10.2967/jnmt.119.236109
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PET imaging, particularly oncologic applications of F-18-FDG, has become a routine diagnostic study. To better describe malignancies, various PET parameters are used. In F-18-FDG PET studies, SUVmax is the most commonly used parameter to measure the metabolic activity of the tumor. In obese patients, SUV corrected by lean body mass (SUL), and in pediatric patients, SUV corrected by body surface area, are recommended. Metabolic tumor volume is an important parameter to determine the local and total tumor burden. Total lesion glycolysis (SUVmean x metabolic tumor volume) provides information about averages. Some treatment response assessment protocols recommend using the SUVpeak or SULpeak of the tumor. Tumor-to-liver ratio and tumor-to-blood-pool ratio are helpful when comparing studies for treatment response assessment. Dual-time-point PET imaging with retention index can help differentiate malignant from benign lesions and may help detect small lesions. Dynamic F-18-FDG PET imaging and quantitative analysis can measure the metabolic, phosphorylation, and dephosphorylation rates of lesions but are mainly used for research purposes. In this article, we will review the currently available PET parameters in F-18-FDG studies with their importance, uses, limitations, and reasons for erroneous results.
引用
收藏
页码:278 / 282
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evolution of quantification methods in oncologic 18F-FDG PET studies
    Nifierola Baizan, Aida
    Ros Puig, Domenec
    Pavia Segura, Javier
    REVISTA ESPANOLA DE MEDICINA NUCLEAR E IMAGEN MOLECULAR, 2018, 37 (04): : 203 - 204
  • [2] Repeatability of SUV in Oncologic 18F-FDG PET
    Lodge, Martin A.
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2017, 58 (04) : 523 - 532
  • [3] 18F-FDG PET and 18F-FDG PET/CT for Assessing Response to Therapy in Esophageal Cancer
    Krause, Bernd J.
    Herrmann, Ken
    Wieder, Hinrich
    zum Bueschenfelde, Christian Meyer
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2009, 50 : 89S - 96S
  • [4] Alert Management In Oncologic Unenhanced 18F-FDG PET-CT Studies
    Mucientes, J.
    Rodriguez, B.
    Prieto, A.
    Cardona, J.
    Mitjavila, M.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, 2016, 43 : S359 - S360
  • [5] Reporting Guidance for Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging
    Niederkohr, Ryan D.
    Greenspan, Bennett S.
    Prior, John O.
    Schoeder, Heiko
    Seltzer, Marc A.
    Zukotynski, Katherine A.
    Rohren, Eric M.
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2013, 54 (05) : 756 - 761
  • [6] Comparative Performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in Detection and Characterization of Pulmonary Lesions in 121 Oncologic Patients
    Sawicki, Lino M.
    Grueneisen, Johannes
    Buchbender, Christian
    Schaarschmidt, Benedikt M.
    Gomez, Benedikt
    Ruhlmann, Verena
    Wetter, Axel
    Umutlu, Lale
    Antoch, Gerald
    Heusch, Philipp
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2016, 57 (04) : 582 - 586
  • [7] Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT: Referring Physicians' Point of View
    Karantanis, Dimitrios
    Kalkanis, Dimitrios
    Allen-Auerbach, Martin
    Bogsrud, Trond Velde
    Subramaniam, Rathan M.
    Danielson, Adam
    Lowe, Val J.
    Czernin, Johannes
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2012, 53 (10) : 1499 - 1505
  • [8] The impact of infection and inflammation in oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging
    Rahman, W. Tania
    Wale, Daniel J.
    Viglianti, Benjamin L.
    Townsend, Danyelle M.
    Manganaro, Matthew S.
    Gross, Milton D.
    Wong, Ka Kit
    Rubello, Domenico
    BIOMEDICINE & PHARMACOTHERAPY, 2019, 117
  • [9] Perceived Misinterpretation Rates in Oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT Studies: A Survey of Referring Physicians
    Karantanis, Dimitrios
    Kalkanis, Dimitrios
    Czernin, Johannes
    Herrmann, Ken
    Pomykala, Kelsey L.
    Bogsrud, Trond V.
    Subramaniam, Rathan M.
    Lowe, Val J.
    Allen-Auerbach, Martin S.
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2014, 55 (12) : 1925 - 1929
  • [10] Comparison of 18F-FDG PET and 18F-FDG SPECT for lung nodules
    Burt, RW
    Witt, RM
    Das, S
    Oppenheim, BE
    Schauwecker, DS
    Siddiqui, AR
    RADIOLOGY, 1997, 205 : 1094 - 1094