RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Validation of a Multifocal Segmentation Method for Measuring Metabolic Tumor Volume in Hodgkin Lymphoma
JF Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
JO J. Nucl. Med. Technol.
FD Society of Nuclear Medicine
SP 30
OP 35
DO 10.2967/jnmt.119.231118
VO 48
IS 1
A1 Mariana R. Camacho
A1 Elba Etchebehere
A1 Natalia Tardelli
A1 Marcia T. Delamain
A1 Aline F.A. Vercosa
A1 Maria E.S. Takahashi
A1 Sergio Q. Brunetto
A1 Irene G.H.L. Metze
A1 Cármino A. Souza
A1 Juliano J. Cerci
A1 Celso D. Ramos
YR 2020
UL http://tech.snmjournals.org/content/48/1/30.abstract
AB Quantification of metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) can be time-consuming. We evaluated the performance of an automatic multifocal segmentation (MFS) method of quantification in patients with different stages of Hodgkin lymphoma, using the multiple VOI (MV) method as reference. Methods: This prospective bicentric study included 50 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma who underwent staging 18F-FGD PET/CT. The examinations were centrally reviewed and processed with commercial MFS software to obtain MTV and TLG using 2 fixed relative thresholds (40% and 20% of SUVmax) for each lesion. All PET/CT scans were processed using the MV and MFS methods. Interclass correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman plots were used for statistical analysis. Repeated calculations of MTV and TLG values by 2 observers with different degrees of PET/CT imaging experience were used to ascertain interobserver agreement on the MFS method. Results: The means and SDs obtained for the MTV with MV and MFS were, respectively, 736 ± 856 mL and 660 ± 699 mL for the 20% threshold and 313 ± 359 mL and 372 ± 434 mL for the 40% threshold. The time spent calculating the MTV was much shorter with the MFS method than with the MV method (median time, 11.6 min [range, 1–30 min] and 64.4 min [range, 1–240 min], respectively), especially in patients with advanced disease. Time spent was similar in patients with localized disease. There were no statistical differences between the MFS values obtained by the 2 different observers. Conclusion: MTV and TLG calculations using MFS are reproducible, generate similar results to those obtained with MV, and are much less timing-consuming. Main differences between the 2 methods were related to difficulties in avoiding overlay of VOIs in the MV technique. MV and MFS perform equally well in patients with a small number of lesions.