June 2007, Volume 34, Issue 6, pp 868-877
Date: 12 Jan 2007
Assessment of quantitative FDG PET data in primary colorectal tumours: which parameters are important with respect to tumour detection?
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
The impact of quantitative parameters on the differentiation of primary colorectal tumours from normal colon tissue was assessed. Dynamic PET data (DPET) were acquired, and compartment and non-compartment modelling applied. The discriminant power of single parameters and the combination of PET parameters was assessed. All lesions were confirmed by histology.
FDG DPET studies were acquired in 22 patients with colorectal tumours prior to surgery. Five of these patients also had liver metastases at the time of the PET study. The SUV 56–60 min p.i. was included in the evaluation. A two-tissue compartment model was applied and the parameters k 1–k 4 as well as the fractional blood volume (V B) were obtained. The FDG influx was calculated from the compartment data. Non-compartment modelling was used to calculate the fractal dimension (FD) of the time-activity data.
FD, SUV, influx and k 3 were the most important single parameters for lesion differentiation. The highest accuracy was achieved for FD (88.78%). The overall tracer uptake was mainly dependent on k 3 and not on k 1 or V B. The support vector machines (SVM) algorithm was used to predict the classification based on the combination of individual PET parameters. The overall accuracy was 97.3%, with only one false positive case and no false negative results. The analysis of the subgroup of five patients with primary tumours and synchronous metastases revealed no significant differences for the individual PET parameters. However, V B tended to be lower while k 1 and k 2 were higher in patients with synchronous metastases. The SVM classification analysis predicted the presence of metastases based on the PET data of the primary tumour in three of five patients.
Quantitative FDG PET studies provide very accurate data for the differentiation of primary colorectal tumours from normal tissue. The use of quantitative data has the advantage that the detection of a colorectal tumour is not primarily dependent on the individual assessment and experience of the physician evaluating the FDG PET data only visually. The results suggest that the presence of metastatic lesions may be predicted by analysis of the dynamic PET data of the corresponding primary tumour. Further studies are needed to assess this aspect in detail.
Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DHS, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 2001;42:1S–93S.PubMed
Koslin DB. Update on gastrointestinal imaging. Rev Gastroenterol Disord 2002;2:3–10.PubMed
Strauss LG, Conti PS. The applications of PET in clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 1991;32:623–48.PubMed
Burger C, Buck A. Requirements and implementations of a flexible kinetic modeling tool. J Nucl Med 1997;38:1818–23.PubMed
Mikolajczyk K, Szabatin M, Rudnicki P, Grodzki M, Burger C. A Java environment for medical image data analysis: initial application for brain PET quantitation. Med Inform 1998;23:207–14.
Sokoloff L, Smith CB. Basic principles underlying radioisotopic methods for assay of biochemical processes in vivo. In: Greitz T, Ingvar DH, Widén L, editors. The metabolism of the human brain studied with positron emission tomography. New York: Raven Press; 1983; p. 123–48.
Ohtake T, Kosaka N, Watanabe T, Yokoyama I, Moritan T, Masuo M, et al. Noninvasive method to obtain input function for measuring glucose utilization of thoracic and abdominal organs. J Nucl Med 1991;32:1432–8.PubMed
Peitgen HO, Juergens H, Saupe D. Length, area and dimension: measuring complexity and scaling properties. In: Peitgen HO, Juergens H, Saupe D, editors. Chaos and fractals. New York: Springer; 1992; p. 192–219.
Chen PH, Lin CJ, Schölkopf B. A tutorial on v-support vector machines. Appl Stoch Models Bus Ind 2005;21:111–36.CrossRef
Guyon I, Weston J, Barnhill S, Vapnik V. Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Mach Learn 2002;46:389–422.CrossRef
Oh JH, Nandi A, Gurnai P, Knowles L, Schorge J. Diagnosis of early relapse in ovarian cancer using serum proteomic profiling. Genome Inform 2005;16:195–204.PubMed
Strauss LG, Clorius JH, Schlag P, Lehner B, Kimmig B, Engenhart R, et al. Recurrence of colorectal tumours: PET evaluation. Radiology 1989;70:329–32.
Kantorová I, Lipská L, Bělohlávek O, Visokai V, Trubač M, Schneiderová M. Routine 18F-FDG PET preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional staging and its impact on treatment decision making. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1784–8.PubMed
Dev P. Basic principles and applications of fractal geometry in pathology: a review. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2005;27:284–90.
Strauss LG, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Koczan D, Bernd L, Haberkorn U, Ewerbeck V, et al. 18F-FDG kinetics and gene expression in giant cell tumours. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1528–35.PubMed
Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Schwarzbach M, Burger C, Heichel T, Willeke F, et al. Dynamic PET 18F-FDG studies in patients with primary and recurrent soft-tissue sarcomas: impact on diagnosis and correlation with grading. J Nucl Med 2001;42:713–20.PubMed
de Geus-Oei LF, Visser EP, Krabbe PFM, van Hoorn BA, Koenders EB, Willemsen AT, et al. Comparison of image-derived and arterial input functions for estimating the rate of glucose metabolism in therapy-monitoring 18F-FDG PET studies. J Nucl Med 2006;47:945–9.PubMed
Strauss LG, DImitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Haberkorn U. Shortened PET data acquisition protocol for the quantification of 18F-FDG kinetics. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1933–9.PubMed
Fanciulli M, Bruno T, Giovannelli A, Gentile FP, Di Padova M, Rubiu O, et al. Energy metabolism of human LoVo colon carcinoma cells: correlation to drug resistance and influence of lonidamine. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:1590–7.PubMed
- Assessment of quantitative FDG PET data in primary colorectal tumours: which parameters are important with respect to tumour detection?
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Volume 34, Issue 6 , pp 868-877
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Quantitative PET
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Medical PET Group-Biological Imaging (E0601), Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- 2. Surgical Clinic, Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany
- 3. Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany