Skip to main content

SU-D-9A-02: Relative Effects of Threshold Choice and Spatial Resolution Modeling On SUV and Volume Quantification in F18-FDG PET Imaging of Anal Cancer Patients.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Zhao, F; Bowsher, J; Palta, M; Czito, B; Willett, C; Yin, F
Published in: Med Phys
June 2014

PURPOSE: PET imaging with F18-FDG is utilized for treatment planning, treatment assessment, and prognosis. A region of interest (ROI) encompassing the tumor may be determined on the PET image, often by a threshold T on the PET standard uptake values (SUVs). Several studies have shown prognostic value for relevant ROI properties including maximum SUV value (SUVmax), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), and total glycolytic activity (TGA). The choice of threshold T may affect mean SUV value (SUVmean), MTV, and TGA. Recently spatial resolution modeling (SRM) has been introduced on many PET systems. SRM may also affect these ROI properties. The purpose of this work is to investigate the relative influence of SRM and threshold choice T on SUVmean, MTV, TGA, and SUVmax. METHODS: For 9 anal cancer patients, 18F-FDG PET scans were performed prior to treatment. PET images were reconstructed by 2 iterations of Ordered Subsets Expectation Maximization (OSEM), with and without SRM. ROI contours were generated by 5 different SUV threshold values T: 2.5, 3.0, 30%, 40%, and 50% of SUVmax. Paired-samples t tests were used to compare SUVmean, MTV, and TGA (a) for SRM on versus off and (b) between each pair of threshold values T. SUVmax was also compared for SRM on versus off. RESULTS: For almost all (57/60) comparisons of 2 different threshold values, SUVmean, MTV, and TGA showed statistically significant variation. For comparison of SRM on versus off, there were no statistically significant changes in SUVmax and TGA, but there were statistically significant changes in MTV for T=2.5 and T=3.0 and in SUVmean for all T. CONCLUSION: The near-universal statistical significance of threshold choice T suggests that, regarding harmonization across sites, threshold choice may be a greater concern than choice of SRM. However, broader study is warranted, e.g. other iterations of OSEM should be considered.

Duke Scholars

Published In

Med Phys

DOI

ISSN

0094-2405

Publication Date

June 2014

Volume

41

Issue

6

Start / End Page

122

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  • 1112 Oncology and Carcinogenesis
  • 0903 Biomedical Engineering
  • 0299 Other Physical Sciences
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Zhao, F., Bowsher, J., Palta, M., Czito, B., Willett, C., & Yin, F. (2014). SU-D-9A-02: Relative Effects of Threshold Choice and Spatial Resolution Modeling On SUV and Volume Quantification in F18-FDG PET Imaging of Anal Cancer Patients. Med Phys, 41(6), 122. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4887918
Zhao, F., J. Bowsher, M. Palta, B. Czito, C. Willett, and F. Yin. “SU-D-9A-02: Relative Effects of Threshold Choice and Spatial Resolution Modeling On SUV and Volume Quantification in F18-FDG PET Imaging of Anal Cancer Patients.Med Phys 41, no. 6 (June 2014): 122. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4887918.

Published In

Med Phys

DOI

ISSN

0094-2405

Publication Date

June 2014

Volume

41

Issue

6

Start / End Page

122

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  • 1112 Oncology and Carcinogenesis
  • 0903 Biomedical Engineering
  • 0299 Other Physical Sciences