Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Standardized Uptake Values in Normal Structures Between PET/CT and PET/MRI in an Oncology Patient Population

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Molecular Imaging and Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare and correlate standardized uptake values (SUV) derived from magnetic resonance attenuation correction (MRAC) with those derived from computed tomography attenuation correction (CTAC) in an oncology patient population.

Procedures

The HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the Internal Review Board and all subjects gave written informed consent prior to inclusion in the study. Forty patients (mean age 61 ± 15.1; 20 male) referred for clinically indicated 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scans also underwent a PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination. MRAC was performed using an automatic three-segment model. Regions of interest were drawn over eight normal structures in order to obtain SUVmax and SUVmean values. Spearman rank correlation coefficients (r) were calculated and two-tailed paired t tests were performed to compare the SUVmax and SUVmean values obtained from CTAC with those from MRAC.

Results

The mean time after FDG injection was 66 ± 7 min for PET/CT and 117 ± 15 min for PET/MRI examination. MRAC SUV values were significantly lower than the CTAC SUV values in mediastinal blood pool (p < 0.001 for both SUVmax and SUVmean) and liver (p = 0.01 for SUVmean). The MRAC SUV values were significantly higher in bone marrow (p < 0.001 for both SUVmax and SUVmean), psoas major muscle (p < 0.001 for SUVmax), and left ventricular myocardium (p < 0.001 for SUVmax and p = 0.01 for SUVmean). For the other normal structures, no significant difference was observed. When comparing SUV values generated from CTAC versus MRAC, high correlations between CTAC and MRAC were observed in myocardium (r = 0.96/0.97 for SUVmax/mean), liver (r = 0.68 for SUVmax), bone marrow (r = 0.80/0.83 for SUVmax/mean), lung tissue (r = 0.70 for SUVmax), and mediastinal blood pool (r = 0.0.68/.069 for SUVmax/mean). Moderate correlations were found in lung tissue (r = 0.67 for SUV mean), liver (r = 0.66 for SUVmean), fat (r = 0.48/0.53 for SUVmax/mean), psoas major muscle (r = 0.54/0.58 for SUVmax/mean), and iliacus muscle (r = 0.41 for SUVmax). Low correlation was found in iliacus muscle (r = 0.32 for SUVmean).

Conclusions

Using the automatic three-segment model, our study showed high correlation for measurement of SUV values obtained from MRAC compared to those from CTAC, as the reference standard. Differences observed between MRAC and CTAC derived SUV values may be attributed to the time-delay between the PET/CT and PET/MRI scans or biologic clearance of radiotracer. Further studies are required to assess SUV measurements when performing different MR attenuation correction techniques.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. Beyer T, Freudenberg L, Czernin J et al (2011) The future of hybrid imaging—part 3: PET/MR, small-animal imaging and beyond. Insights into Imaging 2:235–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Partovi S, Schulte AC, Jacobi B et al (2012) Blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) MRI of human skeletal muscle at 1.5 and 3 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:1227–1232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Heiss WD (2009) The potential of PET/MR for brain imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:105–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Antoch G, Bockisch A (2009) Combined PET/MRI: a new dimension in whole-body oncology imaging? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:S113–S120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M et al (2012) First clinical experience with integrated whole-body PET/MR: comparison to PET/CT in patients with oncologic diagnoses. J Nucl Med 53:845–855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boss A, Bisdas S, Kolb A et al (2010) Hybrid PET/MRI of intracranial masses: initial experiences and comparison to PET/CT. J Nucl Med 51:1198–1205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Boss A, Stegger L, Bisdas S et al (2011) Feasibility of simultaneous PET/MR imaging in the head and upper neck area. Eur Radiol 21:1439–1446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T et al (1998) Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 25:2046–2053

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kinahan PE, Hasegawa BH, Beyer T (2003) X-ray-based attenuation correction for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners. Semin Nucl Med 33:166–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zaidi H, Montandon ML, Slosman DO (2004) Attenuation compensation in cerebral 3D PET: effect of the attenuation map on absolute and relative quantitation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:52–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hofmann M, Steinke F, Scheel V et al (2008) MRI-based attenuation correction for PET/MRI: a novel approach combining pattern recognition and atlas registration. J Nucl Med 49:1875–1883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zaidi H, Montandon ML, Slosman DO (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging-guided attenuation and scatter corrections in three-dimensional brain positron emission tomography. Med Phys 30:937–948

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hofmann M, Bezrukov I, Mantlik F et al (2011) MRI-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MRI: quantitative evaluation of segmentation- and atlas-based methods. J Nucl Med 52:1392–1399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zaidi H (2007) Is MR-guided attenuation correction a viable option for dual-modality PET/MR imaging? Radiology 244:639–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Martinez-Moller A, Souvatzoglou M, Delso G et al (2009) Tissue classification as a potential approach for attenuation correction in whole-body PET/MRI: evaluation with PET/CT data. J Nucl Med 50:520–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ma J, Costelloe CM, Madewell JE et al (2009) Fast Dixon-based multisequence and multiplanar MRI for whole-body detection of cancer metastases. J Magn Reson Imaging 29:1154–1162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Keereman V, Fierens Y, Broux T et al (2010) MRI-based attenuation correction for PET/MRI using ultrashort echo time sequences. J Nucl Med 51:812–818

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Berker Y, Franke J, Salomon A et al (2012) MRI-based attenuation correction for hybrid PET/MRI systems: a 4-class tissue segmentation technique using a combined ultrashort-echo-time/Dixon MRI sequence. J Nucl Med 53:796–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schulz V, Torres-Espallardo I, Renisch S et al (2011) Automatic, three-segment, MR-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MR data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:138–152

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME et al (2007) Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med 48:471–480

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zaidi H, Ojha N, Morich M et al (2011) Design and performance evaluation of a whole-body Ingenuity TF PET-MRI system. Phys Med Biol 56:3091–3106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y et al (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):122S–150S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Taylor R (1990) Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic review. J Diagn Med Sonography 1:35–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W et al (2007) Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:392–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Scheuermann JS, Saffer JR, Karp JS et al (2009) Qualification of PET scanners for use in multicenter cancer clinical trials: the American College of Radiology Imaging Network experience. J Nucl Med 50:1187–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nahmias C, Wahl LM (2008) Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med 49:1804–1808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Keereman V, Holen RV, Mollet P et al (2011) The effect of errors in segmented attenuation maps on PET quantification. Med Phys 38:6010–6019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Robson MD, Gatehouse PD, Bydder M et al (2003) Magnetic resonance: an introduction to ultrashort TE (UTE) imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 27:825–846

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Robson MD, Bydder GM (2006) Clinical ultrashort echo time imaging of bone and other connective tissues. NMR Biomed 19:765–780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Johansson A, Karlsson M, Nyholm T (2011) CT substitute derived from MRI sequences with ultrashort echo time. Med Phys 38:2708–2714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Eiber M, Martinez-Moller A, Souvatzoglou M et al (2011) Value of a Dixon-based MR/PET attenuation correction sequence for the localization and evaluation of PET-positive lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:1691–1701

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chin BB, Green ED, Turkington TG et al (2009) Increasing uptake time in FDG-PET: standardized uptake values in normal tissues at 1 versus 3 h. Mol Imaging Biol 11(2):118–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cheng G, Alavi A, Lim E et al (2012) Dynamic changes of FGD uptake and clearance in normal tissues. Mol Imaging Biol. doi:10.1007/s11307-012-0600-0

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Patrick Wojtylak, CNMT and Piotr Maniawski, PhD for their technical support.

Conflict of interest

This study was investigator initiated and was funded by a research grant from Philips. The PET/MRI system was purchased through a State of Ohio Third Frontier Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Sharif Kershah, Sasan Partovi, Bryan J Traughber, Raymond F. Muzic Jr., James K O’Donnell & Peter Faulhaber

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Mark D Schluchter

Authors
  1. Sharif Kershah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sasan Partovi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bryan J Traughber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Raymond F. Muzic Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark D Schluchter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. James K O’Donnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Peter Faulhaber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Faulhaber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kershah, S., Partovi, S., Traughber, B.J. et al. Comparison of Standardized Uptake Values in Normal Structures Between PET/CT and PET/MRI in an Oncology Patient Population. Mol Imaging Biol 15, 776–785 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-013-0629-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-013-0629-8

Key words

Search

Navigation