SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1

Quantitative Evaluation of FDG PET Imaging

FDG PET Görüntülemelerin Kantitatif Değerlendirilmesi

Ceren SEZGİN
YASEMİN PARLAK
Gözde MUTEVELİZADE
Gül GÜMÜŞER
Elvan SAYİT
Pages
169–173
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

SUV measurement differences change the clinical efficacy of PET-based measurement, a semi-quantitative imaging biomarker for treatment response and treatment planning in oncologic patients.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Positron emission tomography / computed tomography has an increasing use for diagnosis, staging, prognosis and response to treatment in oncological cases.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Semi-quantitative measurements (SUV) obtained from 18F-FDG PET / CT findings are the most important parameters in distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:SUV measurement differences change the clinical efficacy of PET-based measurement, a semi-quantitative imaging biomarker for treatment response and treatment planning in oncologic patients.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:PET/BT · malignite · SUV

Abstract

Positron emission tomography / computed tomography has an increasing use for diagnosis, staging, prognosis and response to treatment in oncological cases. The major advantage of PET is the ability to measure radiopharmaceutical uptake and it gives digital results in the form of standardized uptake value (SUV) . Semi-quantitative measurements (SUV) obtained from 18F-FDG PET / CT findings are the most important parameters in distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions. SUV measurement differences change the clinical efficacy of PET-based measurement, a semi-quantitative imaging biomarker for treatment response and treatment planning in oncologic patients.

Özet

Pozitron emisyon tomografi/ bilgisayarlı tomografi onkolojik vakalarda tanı, evreleme, prognoz ve tedaviye yanıt için giderek artan kullanım alanına sahiptir. PET’in en büyük avantajı radyofarmasötik uptake’ini ölçebilmek ve en çok kullanılan parametre olan standardize uptake değeri (SUV) şeklinde sayısal sonuç vermesidir. SUV hesaplamaları rekonstrükte edilmiş PET ve BT görüntülerinden elde edilir. 18F-FDG PET/BT bulgularından elde edilen semikantitatif ölçümler (SUV) benign-malign lezyon ayırımında en önemli parametrelerdir. SUV ölçüm farklılıkları, onkolojik hastalarda tedavi yanıtı ve tedavi planlaması için yarı kantitatif bir görüntüleme biyobelirteci olan PET tabanlı ölçümün klinik etkinliğini değiştirir.

🔖

Cite This Article

SEZGİN, C., PARLAK, Y., MUTEVELİZADE, G., GÜMÜŞER, G., SAYİT, E. (2021). Quantitative Evaluation of FDG PET Imaging. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1, 169–173. https://ajindex.com/articles/216740

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Referans1 Parlak Y, Gümüşer G, Bilgin E, F-18 FDG PET/BT görüntüleme artefaktları, Türk Onkoloji Dergisi, 2015, 30(3), 166-171 Referans2 Kelloff GJ, Hoffman JM, Johnson B, Progress and promise of FDG-PET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development, Clin Cancer Res, 2005, 11, 2785–2808 Referans3 Weber WA, Wieder H, Monitoring chemotherapy and radiotherapy of solid tumors, Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2006, 33, 27–37 Referans4 M. C. Adams, TG, Turkington, JM. Wilson, TZ. Wong, A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements, American Journal of Roentgenology, 195(2), 310–320 Referans5 Boellaard R, Wim J. G. Oyen, Corneline J. Hoekstra, Otto S. Hoekstra, Eric P. Visser, Antoon T. Willemsen, The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials, Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2008, 35, 2320–2333 Referans6 Parlak Y, Göksoy D, Mütevelizade G, Gümüşer G, Bilgin E, Baseline SUV Range for Liver and Blood Pool in Patients Undergoing F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography, İstanbul Med J, 2019, 20(5), 431-5 Referans7 Thie JA, Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage, J Nucl Med, 2004, 45, 1431-1434 Referans8 Wahl R, PET ve PET/BT Prensipler ve Uygulamalar, 2011, 2. Baskı Referans9 Love C, Tomas M, Gene G. Tronco, Christopher J. Palestro, FDG PET of Infection and Inflammation RadioGraphics, 2005, 25, 1357–1368 Referans10 Keyes JW. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med, 1995, 36, 1836–1839 Referans11 Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM, Wong TZ. A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. American Journal of Roentgenology, 2010, 195(2), 310–320 Referans12 Eskian M, Alavi A, Khorasanizadehl M, Effect of blood glucose level on standardized uptake value (SUV) in 18F- FDG PET-scan: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 20,807 individual SUV measurements, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2019, 46, 224–237 Referans13 Rahmana WT, Walea D, Vigliantia B, Townsendc D The impact of infection and inflammation in oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging, Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 2019, 117, 109-168 Referans14 Kinahan PE, Fletcher JW, PET/CT standardized uptake values (SUVs) in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy, Elsevier Inc, 2010,31, 495–505 Referans15 Steinberg JD, Vogel W, Vegt E. Factors influencing bro