Comparative assessment of methods for estimating tumor volume and standardized uptake value in (18)F-FDG PET.

UNLABELLED

In (18)F-FDG PET, tumors are often characterized by their metabolically active volume and standardized uptake value (SUV). However, many approaches have been proposed to estimate tumor volume and SUV from (18)F-FDG PET images, none of them being widely agreed upon. We assessed the accuracy and robustness of 5 methods for tumor volume estimates and of 10 methods for SUV estimates in a large variety of configurations.

METHODS

PET acquisitions of an anthropomorphic phantom containing 17 spheres (volumes between 0.43 and 97 mL, sphere-to-surrounding-activity concentration ratios between 2 and 68) were used. Forty-one nonspheric tumors (volumes between 0.6 and 92 mL, SUV of 2, 4, and 8) were also simulated and inserted in a real patient (18)F-FDG PET scan. Four threshold-based methods (including one, T(bgd), accounting for background activity) and a model-based method (Fit) described in the literature were used for tumor volume measurements. The mean SUV in the resulting volumes were calculated, without and with partial-volume effect (PVE) correction, as well as the maximum SUV (SUV(max)). The parameters involved in the tumor segmentation and SUV estimation methods were optimized using 3 approaches, corresponding to getting the best of each method or testing each method in more realistic situations in which the parameters cannot be perfectly optimized.

RESULTS

In the phantom and simulated data, the T(bgd) and Fit methods yielded the most accurate volume estimates, with mean errors of 2% +/- 11% and -8% +/- 21% in the most realistic situations. Considering the simulated data, all SUV not corrected for PVE had a mean bias between -31% and -46%, much larger than the bias observed with SUV(max) (-11% +/- 23%) or with the PVE-corrected SUV based on T(bgd) and Fit (-2% +/- 10% and 3% +/- 24%).

CONCLUSION

The method used to estimate tumor volume and SUV greatly affects the reliability of the estimates. The T(bgd) and Fit methods yielded low errors in volume estimates in a broad range of situations. The PVE-corrected SUV based on T(bgd) and Fit were more accurate and reproducible than SUV(max).