ArticleEuropean radiology2014
Variability of average SUV from several hottest voxels is lower than that of SUVmax and SUVpeak.
Article in European radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective Evaluation of a Tumor Control Probability Model Based on DynamicJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2019Trial
- A Pilot Study ofJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023Article
- Multicenter quantitativeQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Tumor volume-adapted SUVJapanese journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Reply to E. LaffonHaematologica · 2020Article
- Concurrent imaging of vascularization and metabolism in a mouse model of paraganglioma under anti-angiogenic treatment.Theranostics · 2020Article
- Reference values of physiological 18F-FET uptake: Implications for brain tumor discrimination.PloS one · 2020Article
- Triple-gated motion and blood pool clearance corrections improve reproducibility of coronaryEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Article
- Quantitative performance and optimal regularization parameter in block sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstructions in clinicalEJNMMI research · 2018Article
- On theEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018Article
- Interim FDG PET scans in lymphoma: SUV measurement error may impair qPET methodology.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2014Article
- Sources of variability in FDG PET imaging and the qPET value: reply to Laffon and Marthan.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess variability of the average standard uptake value (SUV) computed by varying the number of hottest voxels within an (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG)-positive lesion. This SUV metric was compared with the maximal SUV (SUV(max): the hottest voxel) and peak SUV (SUV(peak): SUV(max) and its 26 neighbouring voxels).
methodsTwelve lung cancer patients (20 lesions) were analysed using PET dynamic acquisition involving ten successive 2.5-min frames. In each frame and lesion, average SUV obtained from the N = 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30 hottest voxels (SUV(max-N)), SUV(max) and SUV(peak) were assessed. The relative standard deviations (SDrs) from ten frames were calculated for each SUV metric and lesion, yielding the mean relative SD from 20 lesions for each SUV metric (SDr(N), SDr(max) and SDr(peak)), and hence relative measurement error and repeatability (MEr-R).
resultsFor each N, SDr(N) was significantly lower than SDr(max) and SDr(peak). SDr(N) correlated strongly with N: 6.471 × N(-0.103) (r = 0.994; P < 0.01). MEr-R of SUV(max-30) was 8.94-12.63% (95% CL), versus 13.86-19.59% and 13.41-18.95% for SUV(max) and SUV(peak) respectively.
conclusionsVariability of SUV(max-N) is significantly lower than for SUV(max) and SUV(peak). Further prospective studies should be performed to determine the optimal total hottest volume, as voxel volume may depend on the PET system. KEY POINTS: • PET imaging provides functional parameters of (18) F-FDG-positive lesions, such as SUVmax and SUVpeak. • Averaging SUV from several hottest voxels (SUVmax-N) is a further SUV metric. • Variability of SUVmax-N is significantly lower than SUVmax and SUVpeak variability. • SUVmax-N should improve SUV accuracy for predicting outcome or assessing treatment response. • An optimal total hottest volume should be determined through further prospective studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.