» Articles » PMID: 22627001

Noise Considerations for PET Quantification Using Maximum and Peak Standardized Uptake Value

Overview
Journal J Nucl Med
Specialty Nuclear Medicine
Date 2012 May 26
PMID 22627001
Citations 114
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Unlabelled: In tumor response monitoring studies with (18)F-FDG PET, maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) is commonly applied as a quantitative metric. Although it has several advantages due to its simplicity of determination, concerns about the influence of image noise on single-pixel SUV(max) persist. In this study, we measured aspects of bias and reproducibility associated with SUV(max) and the closely related peak SUV (SUV(peak)) using real patient data to provide a realistic noise context.

Methods: List-mode 3-dimensional PET data were acquired for 15 min over a single bed position in twenty (18)F-FDG oncology patients. For each patient, data were sorted so as to form 2 sets of images: respiration-gated images such that each image had statistical quality comparable to a 3 min/bed position scan, and 5 statistically independent (ungated) images of different durations (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 min). Tumor SUV(max) and SUV(peak) (12-mm-diameter spheric region of interest positioned so as to maximize the enclosed average) were analyzed in terms of reproducibility and bias. The component of reproducibility due to statistical noise (independent of physiologic and other variables) was measured using paired SUVs from 2 comparable respiration-gated images. Bias was measured as a function of scan duration.

Results: Replicate tumor SUV measurements had a within-patient SD of 5.6% ± 0.9% for SUV(max) and 2.5% ± 0.4% for SUV(peak). SUV(max) had average positive biases of 30%, 18%, 12%, 4%, and 5% for the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-min images, respectively. SUV(peak) was also biased but to a lesser extent: 11%, 8%, 5%, 1%, and 4% for the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-min images, respectively.

Conclusion: The advantages of SUV(max) are best exploited when PET images have a high statistical quality. For images with noise properties typically associated with clinical whole-body studies, SUV(peak) provides a slightly more robust alternative for assessing the most metabolically active region of tumor.

Citing Articles

Prognostic Value of Pretreatment F-FDG-PET/CT Metabolic Parameters in Advanced High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer.

Travaglio Morales D, Coronado Poggio M, Huerga Cabrerizo C, Losantos Garcia I, Escabias Del Pozo C, Lancha Hernandez C Cancers (Basel). 2025; 17(4).

PMID: 40002291 PMC: 11853401. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17040698.


Single-center analysis of cardiac amyloidosis using 99m Tc-HMDP imaging for diagnosis and evaluation after tafamidis treatment.

Egi R, Matsusaka Y, Watanabe K, Seto A, Matsunari I, Arai T Nucl Med Commun. 2024; 46(1):38-46.

PMID: 39483085 PMC: 11634134. DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001922.


Whole-body PET image denoising for reduced acquisition time.

Kruzhilov I, Kudin S, Vetoshkin L, Sokolova E, Kokh V Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1415058.

PMID: 39403284 PMC: 11471667. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1415058.


Bone Scintigraphy of Vertebral Fractures With a Whole-Body CZT Camera in a PET-Like Utilization.

Bahloul A, Verger A, Blum A, Chawki M, Perrin M, Melki S Front Nucl Med. 2024; 1:740275.

PMID: 39355639 PMC: 11440846. DOI: 10.3389/fnume.2021.740275.


Advances and challenges in immunoPET methodology.

Mohr P, van Sluis J, Lub-de Hooge M, Lammertsma A, Brouwers A, Tsoumpas C Front Nucl Med. 2024; 4:1360710.

PMID: 39355220 PMC: 11440922. DOI: 10.3389/fnume.2024.1360710.


References
1.
Hatt M, Cheze-Le Rest C, Aboagye E, Kenny L, Rosso L, Turkheimer F . Reproducibility of 18F-FDG and 3'-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine PET tumor volume measurements. J Nucl Med. 2010; 51(9):1368-76. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.110.078501. View

2.
Murray I, Kalemis A, Glennon J, Hasan S, Quraishi S, Beyer T . Time-of-flight PET/CT using low-activity protocols: potential implications for cancer therapy monitoring. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010; 37(9):1643-53. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-010-1466-5. View

3.
Bland J, Altman D . Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999; 8(2):135-60. DOI: 10.1177/096228029900800204. View

4.
McDermott G, Iball G, Scarsbrook A . The potential pitfalls of low-activity protocols in PET/CT imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010; 38(1):185-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-010-1649-0. View

5.
Weber W, Petersen V, Schmidt B, Tyndale-Hines L, Link T, Peschel C . Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(14):2651-7. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.12.004. View