Impact of Different Standardized Uptake Value Measures on PET-Based Quantification of Treatment Response
- 17 June 2013
- journal article
- Published by Society of Nuclear Medicine in Journal of Nuclear Medicine
- Vol. 54 (8), 1188-1194
- https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.113332
Abstract
PET-based treatment response studies typically measure the change in the standardized uptake value (SUV) to quantify response. The relative changes of different SUV measures, such as maximum, peak, mean, or total SUVs (SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVmean, or SUVtotal, respectively), are used across the literature to classify patients into response categories, with quantitative thresholds separating the different categories. We investigated the impact of different SUV measures on the quantification and classification of PET-based treatment response. Methods: Sixteen 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), we acquired whole-body PET/CT scans at baseline, during treatment, and after treatment. The highest 18F-FLT uptake lesions (∼2/patient) were segmented on PET images. Tumor PET response was assessed via the relative change in SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVmean, and SUVtotal, thereby yielding 4 different responses for each tumor at mid- and posttreatment. For each SUV measure, a population average PET response was determined over all tumors. Standard deviation (SD) and range were used to quantify variation of PET response within individual tumors and population averages. Results: Different SUV measures resulted in substantial variation of individual tumor PET response assessments (average SD, 20%; average range, 40%). The most extreme variation between 4 PET response measures was 90% in individual tumors. Classification of tumor PET response depended strongly on the SUV measure, because different SUV measures resulted in conflicting categorizations of PET response (ambiguous treatment response assessment) in more than 80% of tumors. Variation of the population average PET response was considerably smaller (average SD, 7%; average range, 16%), and this variation was not statistically significant. Differences in tumor PET response were greatest between SUVmean and SUVtotal and smallest between SUVmax and SUVpeak. Variations of tumor PET response at midtreatment and posttreatment were similar. Conclusion: Quantification and classification of PET-based treatment response in individual patients were strongly affected by the SUV measure used to assess response. This substantial uncertainty in individual patient PET response was present despite the concurrent robustness of the population average PET response. Given the ambiguity of individual patient PET responses, selection of PET-based treatment response measures and their associated thresholds should be carefully optimized.Keywords
This publication has 38 references indexed in Scilit:
- Impact of the Definition of Peak Standardized Uptake Value on Quantification of Treatment ResponseJournal of Nuclear Medicine, 2012
- Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data AnalysisJournal of Nuclear Medicine, 2009
- Combined Assessment of Metabolic and Volumetric Changes for Assessment of Tumor Response in Patients with Soft-Tissue SarcomasJournal of Nuclear Medicine, 2008
- Sunitinib versus Interferon Alfa in Metastatic Renal-Cell CarcinomaNew England Journal of Medicine, 2007
- [18F]FLT-PET in oncology: current status and opportunitiesEuropean Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2004
- 18FDG-Positron emission tomography for the early prediction of response in advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with imatinib mesylate (Glivec®)European Journal Of Cancer, 2003
- Early changes in [ 18 F]FLT uptake after chemotherapy: an experimental studyEuropean Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2002
- A new precursor for the radiosynthesis of [ 18 F]FLTNuclear Medicine and Biology, 2002
- FDG PET studies during treatment: Prediction of therapy outcome in head and neck squamous cell carcinomaHead & Neck, 2002
- Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendationsEuropean Journal Of Cancer, 1999