Halsne Trygve, Müller Ebba Glørsen, Spiten Ann-Eli, Sherwani Alexander Gul, Gyland Mikalsen Lars Tore, Revheim Mona-Elisabeth, Stokke Caroline
Department of Diagnostic Physics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
J Nucl Med Technol. 2018 Sep;46(3):253-259. doi: 10.2967/jnmt.117.204586. Epub 2018 Mar 29.
Because of better precision and intercompatibility, the use of lean body mass (LBM) as a mass estimate in the calculation of SUV (SUL) has become more common in research and clinical studies today. Thus, the equations deciding this quantity must be those that best represent the actual body composition. LBM was calculated for 44 patients examined with F-FDG PET/CT scans by means of the sex-specific predictive equations of James and Janmahasatians, and the results were validated using a CT-based method that makes use of the eyes-to-thighs CT component of the PET/CT aquisition and segments the voxels according to Hounsfield units. Intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between the various methods. A mean difference of 6.3 kg (limits of agreement, -15.1 to 2.5 kg) between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] was found. This difference was higher than the 3.8-kg difference observed between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] (limits of agreement, -12.5 to 4.9 kg). In addition, [Formula: see text] had a higher intraclass correlation coefficient with [Formula: see text] (0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.94) than with [Formula: see text] (0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.91). Thus, we obtained better agreement between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] Although there were exceptions, the overall effect on SUL was that [Formula: see text] was greater than [Formula: see text] We have verified the reliability of the suggested [Formula: see text] formulas with a CT-derived reference standard. Compared with the more traditional and available set of [Formula: see text] equations, the [Formula: see text] formulas tend to yield better agreement.
由于具有更高的精度和相互兼容性,在如今的研究和临床研究中,使用瘦体重(LBM)作为SUV(SUL)计算中的质量估计值变得更为普遍。因此,决定该数量的方程必须是最能代表实际身体成分的方程。通过James和Janmahasatians的性别特异性预测方程,对44例接受F-FDG PET/CT扫描的患者计算LBM,并使用基于CT的方法进行结果验证,该方法利用PET/CT采集的眼至大腿CT组件并根据亨氏单位对体素进行分割。组内相关系数和Bland-Altman图用于评估各种方法之间的一致性。发现[公式:见正文]和[公式:见正文]之间的平均差异为6.3千克(一致性界限,-15.1至2.5千克)。该差异高于[公式:见正文]和[公式:见正文]之间观察到的3.8千克差异(一致性界限,-12.5至4.9千克)。此外,[公式:见正文]与[公式:见正文]的组内相关系数(0.87;95%置信区间,0.60 - 0.94)高于与[公式:见正文]的组内相关系数(0.77;95%置信区间,0.11 - 0.91)。因此,我们在[公式:见正文]和[公式:见正文]之间获得了更好的一致性。尽管存在例外情况,但对SUL的总体影响是[公式:见正文]大于[公式:见正文]。我们已经用CT衍生的参考标准验证了所建议的[公式:见正文]公式的可靠性。与更传统且可用的[公式:见正文]方程组相比,[公式:见正文]公式往往能产生更好的一致性。