Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Radiopharmaceuticals

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1874-4710
ISSN (Online): 1874-4729

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Optimization of SUV with Changing the Dose Amount in F18-FDG PET/CT of Pediatric Lymphoma Patients

Author(s): Nedim Cüneyt Murat Gülaldi*, Berkay Cagdas and Fatma Arzu Görtan

Volume 16, Issue 2, 2023

Published on: 05 December, 2022

Page: [151 - 157] Pages: 7

DOI: 10.2174/1874471016666221118114726

Price: $65

Abstract

Aims: We aim to reveal an effect of residual activity leftover within the medical materials other than the empty syringe used for injection of the tracer on SUV measurements and consequently effect on possible treatment response assessment.

Background: Staging and follow-up of pediatric lymphoma patients mainly achieved by the help of PET/CT scans. It is crucial to make an optimal imaging technique for interpreting individual images and assessing treatment response.

Objective: Standardized uptake value measurement is an important quantification parameter in PET/CT scanning of childhood lymphomas. Low dose of activity used in pediatric oncology patients makes them vulnerable to small changes of input values for subsequent metabolic parameters.

Methods: Sixty-eight pediatric lymphoma patients below 50 kg were included into the study. SUVmax, SUVpeak values of the most metabolically active lesions, along with liver and mediastinum, were recorded. Metabolic parameters of the lesions/lymph nodes, mediastinum and liver parenchyma were compared before and after counts from medical materials other than empty syringe were taken into account. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for non-parametric paired sampled tests for the groups.

Results: There were statistically significant differences between the whole 6 above-mentioned groups confirming the importance of residual counts on metabolic parameters (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Our study demonstrated residual radioactivity in medical materials such as serum line tubes, i.v. catheters, three-way stopcock and also butterfly needles used during intravenous injection should also be included for optimum quantitative metabolic parameter values and to minimize its the adverse effect on treatment response evaluation, especially in borderline lesions.

Keywords: PET/CT, children, lymphoma, SUV, FDG, oncology, pediatric.

« Previous Next »
Graphical Abstract

[1]
Texte, E.; Lequesne, J.; Tilly, H.; Jardin, F.; Vera, P.; Stamatoullas, A.; Becker, S. SUV max -based assessment of PET response shows a superior specificity to Deauville criteria for predicting recurrence in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Leuk. Lymphoma, 2021, 62(5), 1088-1097.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2020.1855341] [PMID: 33289431]
[2]
Ferrari, C.; Niccoli Asabella, A.; Merenda, N.; Altini, C.; Fanelli, M.; Muggeo, P.; De Leonardis, F.; Perillo, T.; Santoro, N.; Rubini, G. Pediatric hodgkin lymphoma: predictive value of interim 18F-FDG PET/CT in therapy response assessment. Medicine (Baltimore), 2017, 96(5), e5973.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000005973] [PMID: 28151888]
[3]
Kinahan, P.E.; Fletcher, J.W. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy. Semin. Ultrasound CT MR, 2010, 31(6), 496-505.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2010.10.001] [PMID: 21147377]
[4]
Sarikaya, I.; Sarikaya, A. Assessing PET parameters in oncologic 18 F-FDG studies. J. Nucl. Med. Technol., 2020, 48(3), 278-282.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.119.236109] [PMID: 31811061]
[5]
Vanderhoek, M.; Perlman, S.B.; Jeraj, R. Impact of the definition of peak standardized uptake value on quantification of treatment response. J. Nucl. Med., 2012, 53(1), 4-11.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.093443] [PMID: 22213818]
[6]
O, J.H.; Lodge, M.A.; Wahl, R.L. Practical PERCIST: A simplified guide to PET response criteria in solid tumors 1.0. Radiology, 2016, 280(2), 576-584.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016142043] [PMID: 26909647]
[7]
Sher, A.; Lacoeuille, F.; Fosse, P.; Vervueren, L.; Cahouet-Vannier, A.; Dabli, D.; Bouchet, F.; Couturier, O. For avid glucose tumors, the SUV peak is the most reliable parameter for [18F]FDG-PET/CT quantification, regardless of acquisition time. EJNMMI Res., 2016, 6(1), 21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13550-016-0177-8] [PMID: 26944734]
[8]
Osman, M.M.; Muzaffar, R.; Altinyay, M.E.; Teymouri, C. FDG dose extravasations in PET/CT: Frequency and impact on SUV measurements. Front. Oncol., 2011, 1, 41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2011.00041] [PMID: 22655246]
[9]
Bhargava, P.; Kumar, R.; Zhuang, H.; Charron, M.; Alavi, A. Catheter-related focal FDG activity on whole body PET imaging. Clin. Nucl. Med., 2004, 29(4), 238-242.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.rlu.0000118000.18305.8f] [PMID: 15096970]
[10]
JASP 2022. Available from: https://jasp-stats.org/download/ (Version 0.16.2) [Computer Software]
[11]
Brendle, C.; Kupferschläger, J.; Nikolaou, K.; la Fougère, C.; Gatidis, S.; Pfannenberg, C. Is the standard uptake value (SUV) appropriate for quantification in clinical PET imaging? – Variability induced by different SUV measurements and varying reconstruction methods. Eur. J. Radiol., 2015, 84(1), 158-162.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.10.018] [PMID: 25467224]
[12]
Koopman, D.; Jager, P.L.; Slump, C.H.; Knollema, S.; van Dalen, J.A. SUV variability in EARL-accredited conventional and digital PET. EJNMMI Res., 2019, 9(1), 106.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13550-019-0569-7] [PMID: 31823097]
[13]
Vali, R.; Alessio, A.; Balza, R.; Borgwardt, L.; Bar-Sever, Z.; Czachowski, M.; Jehanno, N.; Kurch, L.; Pandit-Taskar, N.; Parisi, M.; Piccardo, A.; Seghers, V.; Shulkin, B.L.; Zucchetta, P.; Lim, R. SNMMI procedure standard/EANM practice guideline on pediatric 18 F-FDG PET/CT for Oncology 1.0. J. Nucl. Med., 2021, 62(1), 99-110.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.254110] [PMID: 33334912]
[14]
McDougald, W.; Vanhove, C.; Lehnert, A.; Lewellen, B.; Wright, J.; Mingarelli, M.; Corral, C.A.; Schneider, J.E.; Plein, S.; Newby, D.E.; Welch, A.; Miyaoka, R.; Vandenberghe, S.; Tavares, A.A.S. Standardization of preclinical PET/CT imaging to improve quantitative accuracy, precision, and reproducibility: A multicenter study. J. Nucl. Med., 2020, 61(3), 461-468.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.231308] [PMID: 31562220]
[15]
Cheson, B.D.; Fisher, R.I.; Barrington, S.F.; Cavalli, F.; Schwartz, L.H.; Zucca, E.; Lister, T.A. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: The Lugano classification. J. Clin. Oncol., 2014, 32(27), 3059-3067.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.54.8800] [PMID: 25113753]
[16]
Fallanca, F.; Alongi, P.; Incerti, E.; Gianolli, L.; Picchio, M.; Kayani, I.; Bomanji, J. Diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET/CT for clinical evaluation at the end of treatment of HL and NHL: A comparison of the Deauville Criteria (DC) and the International Harmonization Project Criteria (IHPC). Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging, 2016, 43(10), 1837-1848.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3390-9] [PMID: 27154522]
[17]
Zhang, Y.; Fan, Y.; Ying, Z.; Song, Y.; Zhu, J.; Yang, Z.; Wang, X. Can the SUV max-liver -based interpretation improve prognostic accuracy of interim and posttreatment 18 F-FDG PET/CT in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? Leuk. Lymphoma, 2018, 59(3), 660-669.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2017.1357171] [PMID: 28771052]
[18]
Morita, T.; Tatsumi, M.; Ishibashi, M.; Isohashi, K.; Kato, H.; Honda, O.; Shimosegawa, E.; Tomiyama, N.; Hatazawa, J. Assessment of mediastinal tumors using SUVmax and volumetric parameters on FDG-PET/CT. Asia Ocean. J. Nucl. Med. Biol., 2017, 5(1), 22-29.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.22038/aojnmb.2016.7996] [PMID: 28840135]
[19]
Blautzik, J.; Grelich, L.; Schramm, N.; Henkel, R.; Bartenstein, P.; Pfluger, T. What and how should we measure in paediatric oncology FDG-PET/CT? Comparison of commonly used SUV metrics for differentiation between paediatric tumours. EJNMMI Res., 2019, 9(1), 115.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13550-019-0577-7] [PMID: 31872312]
[20]
Hasenclever, D.; Kurch, L.; Mauz-Körholz, C.; Elsner, A.; Georgi, T.; Wallace, H.; Landman-Parker, J.; Moryl-Bujakowska, A.; Cepelová, M.; Karlén, J.; Álvarez Fernández-Teijeiro, A.; Attarbaschi, A.; Fosså, A.; Pears, J.; Hraskova, A.; Bergsträsser, E.; Beishuizen, A.; Uyttebroeck, A.; Schomerus, E.; Sabri, O.; Körholz, D.; Kluge, R. qPET – a quantitative extension of the Deauville scale to assess response in interim FDG-PET scans in lymphoma. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging, 2014, 41(7), 1301-1308.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2715-9] [PMID: 24604592]
[21]
Furth, C.; Meseck, R.M.; Steffen, I.G.; Schoenberger, S.; Denecke, T.; Henze, G.; Hautzel, H.; Hofheinz, F.; Großer, O.; Hundsdoerfer, P.; Amthauer, H.; Ruf, J. SUV-measurements and patient-specific corrections in pediatric Hodgkin-lymphoma: Is there a benefit for PPV in early response assessment by FDG-PET? Pediatr. Blood Cancer, 2012, 59(3), 475-480.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pbc.24047] [PMID: 22190514]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
24
2
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy