핵의학 융합영상의 표준섭취계수 차이에 관한 연구
Study on the Difference of Standardized Uptake Value in Fusion Image of Nuclear Medicine
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
PET-CT and PET-MRI which integrates CT using ionized radiation and MRI using phenomena of magnetic resonance are determined to have the limitation to apply the semi-quantitative index, standardized uptake value (SUV), with the same level due to the fundamental differences of image capturing principle and reorganization, hence, their correlations were analyzed to provide their clinical information. To 30 study subjects maintaining pre-treatment, 18F-FDG (5.18 MBq/㎏) was injected and they were scanned continuously without delaying time using BiographTM mMR 3T (Siemens, Munich) and Biograph mCT 64 (Siemens, Germany), which is an integral type, under the optimized condition except the structural differences of both scanners. Upon the measurement results of SUVmax setting volume region of interest with evenly distributed radioactive pharmaceuticals by captured images, SUVmax mean values of PET-CT and PET-MRI were 2.94±0.55 and 2.45±0.52, respectively, and the value of PET-MRI was measured lower by –20.85±7.26% than that of PET-CT. Also, there was a statistically significant difference in SUVs between two scanners (P<0.001), hence, SUV of PET-CT and PET-MRI cannot express the clinical meanings in the same level. Therefore, in case of the patients who undergo cross follow-up tests with PET-CT and PET-MRI, diagnostic information should be analyzed considering the conditions of SUV differences in both scanners.
Abstract
PET-CT and PET-MRI which integrates CT using ionized radiation and MRI using phenomena of magnetic resonance are determined to have the limitation to apply the semi-quantitative index, standardized uptake value (SUV), with the same level due to the fundamental differences of image capturing principle and reorganization, hence, their correlations were analyzed to provide their clinical information. To 30 study subjects maintaining pre-treatment, 18F-FDG (5.18 MBq/㎏) was injected and they were scanned continuously without delaying time using BiographTM mMR 3T (Siemens, Munich) and Biograph mCT 64 (Siemens, Germany), which is an integral type, under the optimized condition except the structural differences of both scanners. Upon the measurement results of SUVmax setting volume region of interest with evenly distributed radioactive pharmaceuticals by captured images, SUVmax mean values of PET-CT and PET-MRI were 2.94±0.55 and 2.45±0.52, respectively, and the value of PET-MRI was measured lower by –20.85±7.26% than that of PET-CT. Also, there was a statistically significant difference in SUVs between two scanners (P<0.001), hence, SUV of PET-CT and PET-MRI cannot express the clinical meanings in the same level. Therefore, in case of the patients who undergo cross follow-up tests with PET-CT and PET-MRI, diagnostic information should be analyzed considering the conditions of SUV differences in both scanners.
참고문헌 (37)
- Ziai P, "Role of optimal quantification of FDG PET imaging in the clinical practice of radiology", RadioGraphics, 36, pp.481~496 (2016)
- Buchbender C, "Positron emission tomography(PET)attenuation correction artefacts in PET", CT and PET, Br J Radiol, pp.2013, 86(1025)[DOI]
- Awan MJ, "Application of positron emission tomography", computed tomography in radiation treatment planning for head and neck cancers, 2015, pp.7(11), 382~393
- Tsubakimoto M, "Quantitative CT density histogram values and standardized uptake values of FDGPET", CT with respiratory gating can distinguish solid adenocarcinomas from squamous cell carcinomas of the lung, 2018, pp.100, 108~115
- Salem U, "18F-FDG PET", CT as an indicator of survival in ewing sarcoma of bone, 2017, pp.8(15), 2892~2898
- Tsuyoshi H, "Diagnostic imaging using positron emission tomography for gynecological malignancy", J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 43(11), pp.1687~1699 (2017)
- Giraudo C, "18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography", magnetic resonance in lymphoma : comparison with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, Invest Radiol, pp.2016, 51(3)[DOI]
- Rouzet F, "New-generation CZT cameras: the future of infection imaging", Eur Hear J, 38, pp.444~446 (2017)
- Rubini G, "Nuclear medicine : the future in the modern healthcare", Clin Oncol, 2, pp.1271~ (2017)
- Lee MS, "Diagnostic value of integrated PET", MRI for detection and localization of prostate cancer : comparative study of multiparametric MRI and PET, J Magn Reson Imaging, pp.2017, 45(2)[DOI]
- Piert M, "18F-choline PET", MRI : the additional value of PET for MRI-guided transrectal prostate biopsies, 2016, pp.57(7), 1065~1070
- Radtke JP, "Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging(MRI)and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection : correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen", Eur Urol, 70(5), pp.846~853 (2016)
- Cho N, "Integrated 18F-FDG PET", MRI in breast cancer : early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 2018, pp.45(3), 328~339
- Cho N, "Early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients : comparison of single-voxel(1)H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy and(18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography", Eur Radiol, 26(7), pp.2279~2290 (2016)
- Frank Schelper L, "Accuracy of a topical PET", CT scanner on SUV measurements of small volumes SUV, 2015, pp.11(4), 262~271
- Hong CM, "Can calcified pulmonary metastases detected by (18)F-FDG PET", CT suggest the primary tumor, 2016, pp.19(1), 10~12
- 장동근, "F-FDG PET", CT 검사에서 이뇨제 사용여부에 따른 F-FDG 배설 특성, 2012, pp.35(2), 151~159[DOI]
- Kim TH, "SUVmax of 18F-FDG PET", CT in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant thyroid nodules according to tumor volume, 2015, pp.16(13), 217~
- Araz M, "18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography", computed tomography for other thyroid cancers : medullary, anaplastic, lymphoma and so forth, 2017, pp.26(1), 1~8
- 신규설, "PET-CT에서 CT의 관전압 및 관전류에 따른 SUV값의 변화", 방사선기술과학, 30(4), pp.373~379 (2007), 대한방사선과학회
- Lyons K, "Comparison of standardized uptake values in normal structures between PET", CT and PET, AJR Am J Roentgenol, pp.2015, 205(5)[DOI]
- Pace L, "Comparison of whole-body PET", CT and PET, Eur J Radiol, pp.2014, 83(2)[DOI]
- Robertson MS, "Software-based PET-MR image coregistration: combined PET-MRI for the rest of us", Pediatr Radiol, 46(11), pp.1552~1561 (2016)
- Quick HH, "Integrated whole-body PET", MR hybrid imaging : clinical experience, 2013, pp.48(5), 280~289
- Pujara AC, "Standardized uptake values from PET", MRI in metastatic breast cancer: an organ-based comparison with PET, pp.2016, 22(3)[DOI]
- Kershah S, "Comparison of standardized uptake values in normal structures between PET", CT and PET, Mol Imaging Biol, pp.2013, 15(6)[DOI]
- Ruhlmann V, "Hybrid imaging for detection of carcinoma of unknown primary : a p reliminary comparis on t rial o f whole-body PET", MRI versus PET, Eur J Radiol, pp.2016, 85(11)[DOI]
- Grueneisen J, "Evaluation of PET and MR datasets in integrated 18F-FDG PET", MRI : a comparison of different MR sequences for whole-body restaging of breast cancer patients, 2017, pp.89, 14~19
- Delso G, "Performance measurements of the siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET", MR scanner, 2011, pp.52, 1~9
- Sachpekidis C, "Comparison of 18F-FDG PET", CT and PET, Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, pp.2015, 5(5)[DOI]
- Khalaf M, "Relation between nodule size and 18F-FDG-PET SUV for malignant and benign pulmonary nodules", J Hematol Oncol, 1, pp.13~ (2008)
- Partovi S, "Qualitative and quantitative performance of 18F-FDG-PET", MRI versus 18F-FDG-PET, Am J Neuroradiol, pp.2014, 35(10)[DOI]
- Freitag MT, "Improved clinical workflow for simultaneous whole-body PET", MRI using high-resolution CAIPIRINHA-accelerated MR-based attenuation correction, 2017, pp.96, 12~20
- Muzic RF, "PET", MRI–technical review, 2014, pp.49(3), 242~254
- Boellaard R, "Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis", J Nucl Med, 50(1), pp.11~20 (2009)
- Rakheja R, "Correlation between standardized uptake value and apparent diffusion coefficient of neoplastic lesions evaluated with whole-body simultaneous hybrid PET", MRI, 2013, pp.201(5), 1115~1119
- Schwenzer NF, "Measurement of apparent diffusion coefficient with simultaneous MR", positron emission tomography in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis : c omparis on with 18F-FDG-PET, 2014, pp.40(5), 1121~1128