title: Comparison of standardized uptake values in normal structures between PET/CT and PET/MRI in an oncology patient population.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to compare and correlate standardized uptake values (SUV) derived from magnetic resonance attenuation correction (MRAC) with those derived from computed tomography attenuation correction (CTAC) in an oncology patient population.
  
  
  METHODS
  The HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the Internal Review Board and all subjects gave written informed consent prior to inclusion in the study. Forty patients (mean age 61 ± 15.1; 20 male) referred for clinically indicated 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scans also underwent a PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination. MRAC was performed using an automatic three-segment model. Regions of interest were drawn over eight normal structures in order to obtain SUVmax and SUVmean values. Spearman rank correlation coefficients (r) were calculated and two-tailed paired t tests were performed to compare the SUVmax and SUVmean values obtained from CTAC with those from MRAC.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean time after FDG injection was 66 ± 7 min for PET/CT and 117 ± 15 min for PET/MRI examination. MRAC SUV values were significantly lower than the CTAC SUV values in mediastinal blood pool (p < 0.001 for both SUVmax and SUVmean) and liver (p = 0.01 for SUVmean). The MRAC SUV values were significantly higher in bone marrow (p < 0.001 for both SUVmax and SUVmean), psoas major muscle (p < 0.001 for SUVmax), and left ventricular myocardium (p < 0.001 for SUVmax and p = 0.01 for SUVmean). For the other normal structures, no significant difference was observed. When comparing SUV values generated from CTAC versus MRAC, high correlations between CTAC and MRAC were observed in myocardium (r = 0.96/0.97 for SUVmax/mean), liver (r = 0.68 for SUVmax), bone marrow (r = 0.80/0.83 for SUVmax/mean), lung tissue (r = 0.70 for SUVmax), and mediastinal blood pool (r = 0.0.68/.069 for SUVmax/mean). Moderate correlations were found in lung tissue (r = 0.67 for SUV mean), liver (r = 0.66 for SUVmean), fat (r = 0.48/0.53 for SUVmax/mean), psoas major muscle (r = 0.54/0.58 for SUVmax/mean), and iliacus muscle (r = 0.41 for SUVmax). Low correlation was found in iliacus muscle (r = 0.32 for SUVmean).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Using the automatic three-segment model, our study showed high correlation for measurement of SUV values obtained from MRAC compared to those from CTAC, as the reference standard. Differences observed between MRAC and CTAC derived SUV values may be attributed to the time-delay between the PET/CT and PET/MRI scans or biologic clearance of radiotracer. Further studies are required to assess SUV measurements when performing different MR attenuation correction techniques.
authors: Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.
authors: Sharif
authors: S
authors: Kershah
authors: Sasan
authors: S
authors: Partovi
authors: Bryan J
authors: BJ
authors: Traughber
authors: Raymond F
authors: RF
authors: Muzic
authors: Mark D
authors: MD
authors: Schluchter
authors: James K
authors: JK
authors: O'Donnell
authors: Peter
authors: P
authors: Faulhaber
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D064847:Multimodal Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000473:pathology*; D011877:Radionuclide Imaging; D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000493:pharmacokinetics*; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D014018:Tissue Distribution; D014054:Tomography / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals
references: NMR Biomed. 2006 Nov;19(7):765-80
references: 17075960
references: J Nucl Med. 2011 Sep;52(9):1392-9
references: 21828115
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Sep;38(9):1691-701
references: 21688050
references: J Nucl Med. 2010 Aug;51(8):1198-205
references: 20660388
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Jan;38(1):138-52
references: 20922522
references: Mol Imaging Biol. 2013 Jun;15(3):345-52
references: 23090853
references: J Nucl Med. 2012 Jun;53(6):845-55
references: 22534830
references: J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2003 Nov-Dec;27(6):825-46
references: 14600447
references: Med Phys. 2003 May;30(5):937-48
references: 12773003
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004 Jan;31(1):52-63
references: 14574512
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Mar;36 Suppl 1:S105-12
references: 19104801
references: Med Phys. 1998 Oct;25(10):2046-53
references: 9800714
references: J Nucl Med. 2012 May;53(5):796-804
references: 22505568
references: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 May;35(5):1227-32
references: 22246901
references: Radiology. 2007 Sep;244(3):639-42
references: 17709821
references: J Nucl Med. 2009 Jul;50(7):1187-93
references: 19525463
references: Insights Imaging. 2011 Jun;2(3):235-246
references: 22347950
references: J Nucl Med. 2008 Nov;49(11):1875-83
references: 18927326
references: Mol Imaging Biol. 2009 Mar-Apr;11(2):118-22
references: 19037614
references: J Nucl Med. 2009 Apr;50(4):520-6
references: 19289430
references: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 May;29(5):1154-62
references: 19388121
references: J Nucl Med. 2009 May;50 Suppl 1:122S-50S
references: 19403881
references: Eur Radiol. 2011 Jul;21(7):1439-46
references: 21308378
references: Med Phys. 2011 May;38(5):2708-14
references: 21776807
references: Med Phys. 2011 Nov;38(11):6010-9
references: 22047365
references: J Nucl Med. 2010 May;51(5):812-8
references: 20439508
references: Semin Nucl Med. 2003 Jul;33(3):166-79
references: 12931319
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Mar;34(3):392-404
references: 17033848
references: Phys Med Biol. 2011 May 21;56(10):3091-106
references: 21508443
references: J Nucl Med. 2007 Mar;48(3):471-80
references: 17332626
references: J Nucl Med. 2008 Nov;49(11):1804-8
references: 18927325
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Mar;36 Suppl 1:S113-20
references: 19104802