Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 607–613

SUV correction for injection errors in FDG-PET examination

  • Kouichi Miyashita
  • Nobukazu Takahashi
  • Takashi Oka
  • Shinobu Asakawa
  • Jin Lee
  • Kazuya Shizukuishi
  • Tomio Inoue
SHORT COMMUNICATION

Abstract

Objective

Many studies have documented the clinical usefulness of standardized uptake values (SUV) for diagnosis. However, in the event of injection error, accurate measurements cannot be obtained if the radioactivity of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) leakage is not subtracted from the administered dosage. Here, a correction formula for radioactivity estimation that takes into account the radioactivity of FDG leakage was derived on the basis of a phantom experiment. Furthermore, to determine whether SUV could be accurately calculated by the correction formula, we performed a volunteer study.

Methods

Images were displayed by altering the conversion constant from 1.0, 0.1 to 0.01, and the range of correctable counts was verified on the basis of image inversion. To estimate the radioactivity of FDG leakage by imaging, the count of the leakage was measured, converted into a radioactivity concentration using a cross-calibration factor (CCF), and multiplied by volume, as measured by imaging. Three factors that markedly affect count, i.e., count rate performance, partial volume effect and crosstalk, were assessed in phantom studies in order to derive a correction formula. In addition, to clarify the accuracy of the correction formula, we attached to the right elbow.

Results

With a conversion constant of 0.1, there was no image inversion at ≤1.565 MBq/ml. At concentrations below this, the average detection rate was 90%. This suggests that count rate performance can be corrected at ≤1.0 MBq/ml. Crosstalk investigations clarified that the effects of adjacent radioactivity concentrations on FDG leakage were not marked. On the basis of investigations on partial volume effect and count rate performance, the following formulas were derived:

For leakages of ≥28 mm

Leakage radioactivity (MBq) = positron emission tomography (PET) radioactivity (MBq) × 0.9.

For leakages of ≥15 mm but <28 mm

Leakage radioactivity (MBq) = PET radioactivity (MBq) × 0.9 × (0.0517 × leakage size (mm) − 0.4029).

In a volunteer study with 10 MBq leakage, SUV recalculated using the formula achieved 99.97% correction, whereas with 100 MBq leakage, SUV achieved 67.5% resulting in poor correction.

Conclusions

The present correction technique can accurately calculate SUV and could be useful for the clinical diagnosis of malignant tumors.

Key words

FDG PET SUV correction Injection errors Phantom studies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abe, S, Nishino, M, Yamashita, M, Yamaguchi, H 2003Examination of SUV of regional activity concentration for simultaneous emission/transmission acquisition using the mask techniqueNippon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi596329PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lodge, MA, Badawi, RD, Marsden, PK 1998A clinical evaluation of the quantitative accuracy of simultaneous emission/transmission scanning in whole-body positron emission tomographyEur J Nucl Med2541723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keyes, JW,Jr 1995SUV: Standard uptake or silly useless value?J Nucl Med3618369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greuter, HN, Boellaard, R, van Lingen, A, Franssen, EJ, Lammertsma, AA 2003Measurement of 18F-FDG concentrations in blood samples: comparison of direct calibration and standard solution methodsJ Nucl Med Technol312069PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Subcommittee on Medical Application of Cyclotron-Produced Radionuclides, Medical and Pharmaceutical Committee, Japan Radioisotope Association1994Guideline for performance evaluation of positron emission tomographsRadioisotopes4311535Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Performance evaluation method of Japan Industries Association of Radiation Apparatus standard JESRA x-73: PET device 1993Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Inoue, K, Sato, T, Kitamura, H, Hirayama, A, Fukushi, M, Kurosawa, H,  et al. 2006Examination of PET image evaluation experimentation method aiming at improved accuracy of data acquisitionNippon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi62144955PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Di Bella, EVR, Kadrmas, DJ, Christian, PE 2001Feasibility of dual-isotope coincidence/single-photon imaging of the myocardium cardiac imagingJ Nucl Med4294450PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nakamura, F, Kanno, T, Okada, H, Yoshikawa, E, Andou, I, Futatsubashi, M,  et al. 2006Measurement of radiation exposure to a PET institution driver from patients injected with FDGNippon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi62110510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matthies, A, Hickeson, M, Cuchiara, A 2002Dual time point 18F-FDG PET for the evaluation of pulmonary nodulesJ Nucl Med438715PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Imdahl, A, Nitzsche, E, Krautmann, F 1999Evaluation of positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose for the differentiation of chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancerBr J Surg861949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nakamoto, Y, Higashi, T, Sakahara, H 2000Delayed (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography scan for differentiation between malignant and benign lesions in the pancreasCancer89254754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kouichi Miyashita
    • 1
  • Nobukazu Takahashi
    • 1
  • Takashi Oka
    • 1
  • Shinobu Asakawa
    • 1
  • Jin Lee
    • 1
  • Kazuya Shizukuishi
    • 1
  • Tomio Inoue
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyYokohama City University Graduate School of MedicineYokohamaJapan

Personalised recommendations