Comparative Assessment of Methods for Estimating Tumor Volume and Standardized Uptake Value in 18F-FDG PET

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Simon Stute¹  Perrine Tylski¹  Bruno Vanderlinden¹  Irène Buvat¹  Isabelle Gardin¹  Kaya Doyeux¹  Sébastien Hapdey¹  Nicolas Grotus¹ 

关键词: PET;    standardized uptake value;    tumor volume;    partial volume effect correction;    tumor segmentation;   

DOI  :  10.2967/jnumed.109.066241

学科分类：医学（综合）

来源: Society of Nuclear Medicine

【 摘 要 】

In 18F-FDG PET, tumors are often characterized by their metabolically active volume and standardized uptake value (SUV). However, many approaches have been proposed to estimate tumor volume and SUV from 18F-FDG PET images, none of them being widely agreed upon. We assessed the accuracy and robustness of 5 methods for tumor volume estimates and of 10 methods for SUV estimates in a large variety of configurations. Methods: PET acquisitions of an anthropomorphic phantom containing 17 spheres (volumes between 0.43 and 97 mL, sphere-to-surrounding-activity concentration ratios between 2 and 68) were used. Forty-one nonspheric tumors (volumes between 0.6 and 92 mL, SUV of 2, 4, and 8) were also simulated and inserted in a real patient 18F-FDG PET scan. Four threshold-based methods (including one, Tbgd, accounting for background activity) and a model-based method (Fit) described in the literature were used for tumor volume measurements. The mean SUV in the resulting volumes were calculated, without and with partial-volume effect (PVE) correction, as well as the maximum SUV (SUVmax). The parameters involved in the tumor segmentation and SUV estimation methods were optimized using 3 approaches, corresponding to getting the best of each method or testing each method in more realistic situations in which the parameters cannot be perfectly optimized. Results: In the phantom and simulated data, the Tbgd and Fit methods yielded the most accurate volume estimates, with mean errors of 2% ± 11% and −8% ± 21% in the most realistic situations. Considering the simulated data, all SUV not corrected for PVE had a mean bias between −31% and −46%, much larger than the bias observed with SUVmax (−11% ± 23%) or with the PVE-corrected SUV based on Tbgd and Fit (−2% ± 10% and 3% ± 24%). Conclusion: The method used to estimate tumor volume and SUV greatly affects the reliability of the estimates. The Tbgd and Fit methods yielded low errors in volume estimates in a broad range of situations. The PVE-corrected SUV based on Tbgd and Fit were more accurate and reproducible than SUVmax.

【 授权许可】

Unknown