Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic performance of total-body 18F-FDG PET/CT with fast 2-min acquisition for liver tumours: comparison with conventional PET/CT

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Editorial to this article was published on 09 April 2022

Abstract

Purpose

To comparatively evaluate the diagnostic performances of total-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) with fast 2-min acquisition and conventional PET/CT in liver cancer patients.

Methods

This study included 156 patients with liver tumours. Seventy-eight patients underwent total-body PET/CT. PET raw data were reconstructed using acquisition durations of 2 min (G2) and 15 min (G15). Another 78 patients with liver lesions (control patients) underwent conventional uMI780 PET/CT (G780). All patients were evaluated based on TNM staging. The maximum tumour standardized uptake value (tumour SUVmax), mean normal liver SUV (SUVmean), and tumour SUVmax-to-liver SUVmean ratio (TLR) were determined for all patients. G15 data were used as the reference in the lesion detectability analysis. The diagnostic performances of PET/CT in terms of visual parameters and of PET in terms of semi-quantitative parameters such as SUVmax and TLR were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis of SUVmax and TLR at G2 was performed. Pathologic findings of surgical specimens served as the gold standard for all patients.

Results

The lesions found in G15 were also noted in G2; three lymph nodes were missed in G2. However, no significant difference was found in the TNM stage among G2, G15, and G780. For benign and malignant lesions, the liver SUVmean in G2 and G15 was higher than that in G780 (all P < 0.05). The tumour SUVmax and TLR in G2 were equivalent to those in G15 and G780 regardless of whether the lesions were benign or malignant. ROC curve analysis (SUVmax cutoff: 4.34, TLR cutoff: 1.34) demonstrated that G2 also had good sensitivity in detecting liver cancer.

Conclusion

The diagnostic performance of total-body PET/CT in G2 was comparable to that in G15 among liver cancer patients. Further, the diagnostic efficiency of total-body PET/CT imaging with fast 2-min acquisition and conventional PET/CT was similar.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anwanwan D, Singh SK, Singh S, Saikam V, Singh R. Challenges in liver cancer and possible treatment approaches. Biochimica Biophysica Acta Rev Cancer. 2020;1873(1):188314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2019.188314.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Starley BQ, Calcagno CJ, Harrison SA. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma: a weighty connection. Hepatology. 2010;51(5):1820–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.23594.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhou M, Wang H, Zeng X, Yin P, Zhu J, Chen W, et al. Mortality, morbidity, and risk factors in China and its provinces, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet. 2019;394(10204):1145–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30427-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Benson AB, D’Angelica MI, Abbott DE, Abrams TA, Alberts SR, Anaya DA, et al. Guidelines insights: hepatobiliary cancers, version 2.2019. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(4):302–10. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0019.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ayuso C, Rimola J, Vilana R, Burrel M, Darnell A, Garcia-Criado A, et al. Diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): current guidelines. Eur J Radiol. 2018;101:72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.01.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Na SJ, Oh JK, Hyun SH, Lee JW, Hong IK, Song B, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT can predict survival of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(5):730–6. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.182022.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee SM, Kim HS, Lee S, Lee JW. Emerging role of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for guiding management of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2019;25(11):1289–306. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i11.1289.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lu R, She B, Gao W, Ji Y, Xu D, Wang Q, et al. Positron-emission tomography for hepatocellular carcinoma: current status and future prospects. World J Gastroentero. 2019;25(32):4682–95. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i32.4682.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Schiller F, Frings L, Thurow J, Meyer PT, Mix M. Limits for reduction of acquisition time and administered activity in (18)F-FDG PET studies of Alzheimer dementia and frontotemporal dementia. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(12):1764–70. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.227132.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJG, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I. 2015;42(2):328–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Spencer BA, Berg E, Schmall JP, Omidvari N, Leung EK, Abdelhafez YG, et al. Performance evaluation of the uEXPLORER total-body PET/CT scanner based on NEMA NU 2–2018 with additional tests to characterize PET scanners with a long axial field of view. J Nucl Med. 2021;62(6):861–70. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.250597.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Liu G, Hu P, Yu H, Tan H, Zhang Y, Yin H, et al. Ultra-low-activity total-body dynamic PET imaging allows equal performance to full-activity PET imaging for investigating kinetic metrics of 18F-FDG in healthy volunteers. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05173-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tan H, Sui X, Yin H, Yu H, Gu Y, Chen S, et al. Total-body PET/CT using half-dose FDG and compared with conventional PET/CT using full-dose FDG in lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I. 2021;48(6):1966–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05091-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang Y, Hu P, Wu R, Gu Y, Chen S, Yu H, et al. The image quality, lesion detectability, and acquisition time of 18F-FDG total-body PET/CT in oncological patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol I. 2020;47(11):2507–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04823-w.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hu P, Zhang Y, Yu H, Chen S, Tan H, Qi C, et al. Total-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT scan in oncology patients: how fast could it be? Eur J Nucl Med Mol I. 2021;48(8):2384–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05357-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lamarca A, Santos Laso A, Utpatel K, la Casta A, Stock S, Forner A, et al. Liver metastases of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: implications for an updated staging system. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md). 2021;73(6):2311–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.31598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, Compton CC, Gershenwald JE, Brookland RK, et al. The eighth edition AJCC cancer staging manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(2):93–9. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Liu C, Pierce Ii LA, Alessio AM, Kinahan PE. The impact of respiratory motion on tumor quantification and delineation in static PET/CT imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54(24):7345–62. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/54/24/007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Nehmeh SA, Erdi YE. Respiratory motion in positron emission tomography/computed tomography: a review. Semin Nucl Med. 2008;38(3):167–76. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2008.01.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang X, Zhou J, Cherry SR, Badawi RD, Qi J. Quantitative image reconstruction for total-body PET imaging using the 2-meter long EXPLORER scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(6):2465–85. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa5e46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang X, Cherry SR, Xie Z, Shi H, Badawi RD, Qi J. Subsecond total-body imaging using ultrasensitive positron emission tomography. Proc Natl Acad Sci PNAS. 2020;117(5):2265–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917379117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Badawi RD, Shi H, Hu P, Chen S, Xu T, Price PM, et al. First human imaging studies with the EXPLORER total-body PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(3):299–303. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.226498.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Pantel AR, Viswanath V, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Dubroff JG, Muehllehner G, Parma MJ, et al. PennPET explorer: human imaging on a whole-body imager. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(1):144–51. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.231845.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Xiao J, Yu H, Sui X, Hu Y, Cao Y, Liu G, et al. Can the BMI-based dose regimen be used to reduce injection activity and to obtain a constant image quality in oncological patients by (18)F-FDG total-body PET/CT imaging? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;49(1):269–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05462-5.

  26. Tan H, Sui X, Yin H, Yu H, Gu Y, Chen S, et al. Total-body PET/CT using half-dose FDG and compared with conventional PET/CT using full-dose FDG in lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol. 2020 Nov;I(2020):27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05091-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mawlawi O, Erasmus JJ, Pan T, Cody DD, Campbell R, Lonn AH, et al. Truncation artifact on PET/CT: impact on measurements of activity concentration and assessment of a correction algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(5):1458–67. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.0255.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study is supported by the National Science Foundation for Scholars of China (Grant No. 81871407 to H.C.S.) and Shanghai Municipal Key Clinical Specialty (No. shslczdzk03401), Three-year Action Plan of Clinical Skills and Innovation of Shanghai Hospital Development Center (No. SHDC2020CR3079B to H.C.S.), the Shanghai Science and Technology Committee (No. 20DZ2201800), Three-year Action Plan for the fifth round of public health system construction in Shanghai (No. GWV-10.1-XK10), and Next Generation Information Infrastructure Construction Project (No. 201901014).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Rd, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Yan Hu, Guobing Liu, Haojun Yu & Hongcheng Shi

  2. Nuclear Medicine Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Yan Hu, Guobing Liu, Haojun Yu & Hongcheng Shi

  3. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Yan Hu, Guobing Liu, Haojun Yu & Hongcheng Shi

  4. Department of Plastic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Rd, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Jianying Gu

Authors
  1. Yan Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guobing Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haojun Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jianying Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hongcheng Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

We acknowledge the contributions of all members involved in this article. Y.H. and H.C.S. contributed to the study design. Y.H. and G.B.L. contributed to the data processing and analysis. H.J.Y contributed to the image acquisition and processing. Y.H. and H.C.S. contributed to the manuscript drafting. J.Y.G and H.C.S. contributed to the article revising. All authors discussed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jianying Gu or Hongcheng Shi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Oncology – General.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 206 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, Y., Liu, G., Yu, H. et al. Diagnostic performance of total-body 18F-FDG PET/CT with fast 2-min acquisition for liver tumours: comparison with conventional PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 49, 3538–3546 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-05772-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-05772-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation