Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient’s weight: a neglected cause of variability in SUV measurements? A survey from an EARL accredited PET centre in 513 patients

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

References

  1. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, 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 Imaging 2015;42:328–54. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lasnon C, Desmonts C, Quak E, Gervais R, Do P, Dubos-Arvis C, et al. Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40:985–96. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2391-1.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Makris NE, Huisman MC, Kinahan PE, Lammertsma AA, Boellaard R. Evaluation of strategies towards harmonization of FDG PET/CT studies in multicentre trials: comparison of scanner validation phantoms and data analysis procedures. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40:1507–15. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2465-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Quak E, Le Roux PY, Hofman MS, Robin P, Bourhis D, Callahan J, et al. Harmonizing FDG PET quantification while maintaining optimal lesion detection: prospective multicentre validation in 517 oncology patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015. doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3128-0.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. European Association of Nuclear Medicine. EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation. 2015. http://earl.eanm.org/cms/website.php?id=/en/projects/fdg_pet_ct_accreditation.htm.

  6. Graham MM, Wahl RL, Hoffman JM, Yap JT, Sunderland JJ, Boellaard R, et al. Summary of the UPICT Protocol for 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging in Oncology Clinical Trials. J Nucl Med 2015;56:955–61. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.158402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. da Silva AM, Fischer A. WE-AB-204-05: harmonizing PET/CT quantification in multicenter studies: a case study. Med Phys 2015;42:3660. doi:10.1118/1.4925881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 2009;50 Suppl 1:11S–20S. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057182.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Boellaard R. Methodological aspects of multicenter studies with quantitative PET. Methods Mol Biol 2011;727:335–49. doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-062-1_18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Boellaard R. Mutatis mutandis: harmonize the standard! J Nucl Med 2012;53:1–3. doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.094763.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Beyer T, Czernin J, Freudenberg LS. Variations in clinical PET/CT operations: results of an international survey of active PET/CT users. J Nucl Med 2011;52:303–10. doi:10.2967/jnumed.110.079624.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Graham MM, Badawi RD, Wahl RL. Variations in PET/CT methodology for oncologic imaging at U.S. academic medical centers: an imaging response assessment team survey. J Nucl Med 2011;52:311–7. doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.074104.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Binns DS, Pirzkall A, Yu W, Callahan J, Mileshkin L, Conti P, et al. Compliance with PET acquisition protocols for therapeutic monitoring of erlotinib therapy in an international trial for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:642–50. doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1665-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hristova I, Boellaard R, Vogel W, Mottaghy F, Marreaud S, Collette S, et al. Retrospective quality control review of FDG scans in the imaging sub-study of PALETTE EORTC 62072/VEG110727: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015;42:848–57. doi:10.1007/s00259-015-3002-0.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rowland ML. Self-reported weight and height. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;52:1125–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to Prof. Rodney Hicks, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, East Melbourne, Australia, for his fruitful comments. We also thank our team of technologists, our radiopharmacists (Drs Lemonnier and Peyronnet) and our medical physicist Cédric Desmonts for their committment to the EARL accreditation program.

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Nuclear Medicine Department, University Hospital, Avenue Côte de Nacre, 14000, Caen, France

      Charline Lasnon, Benjamin Houdu, Emmanuel Kammerer, Thibault Salomon, Jeremy Devreese, Adrien Lebasnier & Nicolas Aide

    2. INSERM 1199, François Baclesse Cancer Centre, Caen, France

      Charline Lasnon & Nicolas Aide

    3. Normandie University, Caen, France

      Charline Lasnon & Nicolas Aide

    Authors
    1. Charline Lasnon
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Benjamin Houdu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Emmanuel Kammerer
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Thibault Salomon
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Jeremy Devreese
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Adrien Lebasnier
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    7. Nicolas Aide
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Nicolas Aide.

    Ethics declarations

    Conflicts of interest

    None.

    Ethical approval

    All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

    Informed consent

    Informed consent was not necessary for this type of survey.

    Additional information

    Benjamin Houdu, Emmanuel Kammerer, Thibault Salomon and Jeremy Devreese contributed equally to this work.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Lasnon, C., Houdu, B., Kammerer, E. et al. Patient’s weight: a neglected cause of variability in SUV measurements? A survey from an EARL accredited PET centre in 513 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43, 197–199 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3214-3

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3214-3

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation