Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Verification of the tumor volume delineation method using a fixed threshold of peak standardized uptake value

  • Published:
Radiological Physics and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We aimed to determine the difference in tumor volume associated with the reconstruction model in positron-emission tomography (PET). To reduce the influence of the reconstruction model, we suggested a method to measure the tumor volume using the relative threshold method with a fixed threshold based on peak standardized uptake value (SUVpeak). The efficacy of our method was verified using 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose PET/computed tomography images of 20 patients with lung cancer. The tumor volume was determined using the relative threshold method with a fixed threshold based on the SUVpeak. The PET data were reconstructed using the ordered-subset expectation maximization (OSEM) model, the OSEM + time-of-flight (TOF) model, and the OSEM + TOF + point-spread function (PSF) model. The volume differences associated with the reconstruction algorithm (%VD) were compared. For comparison, the tumor volume was measured using the relative threshold method based on the maximum SUV (SUVmax). For the OSEM and TOF models, the mean %VD values were −0.06 ± 8.07 and −2.04 ± 4.23% for the fixed 40% threshold according to the SUVmax and the SUVpeak, respectively. The effect of our method in this case seemed to be minor. For the OSEM and PSF models, the mean %VD values were −20.41 ± 14.47 and −13.87 ± 6.59% for the fixed 40% threshold according to the SUVmax and SUVpeak, respectively. Our new method enabled the measurement of tumor volume with a fixed threshold and reduced the influence of the changes in tumor volume associated with the reconstruction model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(5):496–507.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(3):480–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Oyen WJ, Bussink J, Verhagen AF, Corstens FH, Bootsma GP. Role of FDG-PET in the diagnosis and management of lung cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2004;4(4):561–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Okubo M, Nishimura Y, Nakamatsu K, Okumura M, Shibata T, Kanamori S, et al. Radiation treatment planning using positron emission and computed tomography for lung and pharyngeal cancers: a multiple-threshold method for [(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose activity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77(2):350–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(6):932–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Moon SH, Hyun SH, Choi JY. Prognostic significance of volume-based PET parameters in cancer patients. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14(1):1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Van de Wiele C, Kruse V, Smeets P, Sathekge M, Maes A. Predictive and prognostic value of metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis in solid tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(2):290–301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Abgral R, Keromnes N, Robin P, Le Roux PY, Bourhis D, Palard X, et al. Prognostic value of volumetric parameters measured by 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(4):659–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pak K, Cheon GJ, Nam HY, Kim SJ, Kang KW, Chung JK, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(6):884–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dibble EH, Alvarez AC, Truong MT, Mercier G, Cook EF, et al. 18F-FDG metabolic tumor volume and total glycolytic activity of oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: adding value to clinical staging. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(5):709–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nestle U, Kremp S, Schaefer-Schuler A, Sebastian-Welsch C, Hellwig D, Rübe C, et al. Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET–positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(8):1342–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Firouzian A, Kelly MD, Declerck JM. Insight on automated lesion delineation methods for PET data. EJNMMI Res. 2014;4:69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(11):1716–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. El Fakhri G, Surti S, Trott CM, Scheuermann J, Karp JS. Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(3):347–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Sheikhbahaei S, Marcus C, Wray R, Rahmim A, Lodge MA, Subramaniam RM. Impact of point spread function reconstruction on quantitative 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging parameters and inter-reader reproducibility in solid tumors. Nucl Med Commun. 2016;37(3):288–96.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S–50S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Vanderhoek M, Perlman SB, Jeraj R. Impact of the definition of peak standardized uptake value on quantification of treatment response. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(1):4–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Akamatsu G, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Tsutsui Y, Baba S, Sasaki M. Influences of point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstructions on standardized uptake value of lymph node metastases in FDG-PET. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(1):226–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, Mazumdar M, Macapinlac HA, Finn RD, et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2(3):159–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, Maeda T, Ebina Y, Yamada H, et al. Preoperative risk stratification using metabolic parameters of 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with endometrial cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(8):1268–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kao CH, Hsieh TC, Yu CY, Yen KY, Yang SN, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT-based gross tumor volume definition for radiotherapy in head and neck cancer: a correlation study between suitable uptake value threshold and tumor parameters. Radiat Oncol. 2010;5:76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Jentzen W, Freudenberg L, Eising EG, Heinze M, Brandau W, Bockisch A. Segmentation of PET volumes by iterative image thresholding. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(1):108–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brianzoni E, Rossi G, Ancidei S, Berbellini A, Capoccetti F, Cidda C, et al. Radiotherapy planning: PET/CT scanner performances in the definition of gross tumour volume and clinical target volume. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32(12):1392–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hatt M, Cheze-le Rest C, van Baardwijk A, Lambin P, Pradier O, Visvikis D. Impact of tumor size and tracer uptake heterogeneity in 18F-FDG PET and CT non-small cell lung cancer tumor delineation. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(11):1690–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Biehl KJ, Kong FM, Dehdashti F, Jin JY, Mutic S, El Naqa I, et al. 18F-FDG PET definition of gross tumor volume for radiotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer: is a single standardized uptake value threshold approach appropriate? J Nucl Med. 2006;47(11):1808–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Andersen FL, Klausen TL, Loft A, Beyer T, Holm S. Clinical evaluation of PET image reconstruction using a spatial resolution model. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(5):862–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masahiro Fukushi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethnical approval

All procedures involving human participants were performed in accordance with the ethics committee of our institution and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in this study.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koyama, K., Mitsumoto, T., Shiraishi, T. et al. Verification of the tumor volume delineation method using a fixed threshold of peak standardized uptake value. Radiol Phys Technol 10, 311–320 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-017-0405-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-017-0405-6

Keywords

Navigation