The effect of new formulas for lean body mass on lean- body-mass-normalized SUV in oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT
Halsne, Trygve; Müller, Ebba Gløersen; Spiten, Ann-Eli; Sherwani, Alexander Gul; Mikalsen, Lars Tore G; Rootwelt-Revheim, Mona-Elisabeth; Stokke, Caroline
Journal article, Peer reviewed
Accepted version
Permanent lenke
https://hdl.handle.net/10642/6796Utgivelsesdato
2018-03-28Metadata
Vis full innførselSamlinger
Originalversjon
Halsne T, Müller, Spiten, Sherwani, Mikalsen LTG, Rootwelt-Revheim ME, Stokke C. The effect of new formulas for lean body mass on lean- body-mass-normalized SUV in oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology. 2018;46(3):253-259 http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.117.204586Sammendrag
Due to better precision and intercompatibility, the use of lean body mass (LBM) as mass estimate in the
calculation of standardized uptake values (SUV) has become more common in research and clinical studies
today. Thus, the equations deciding this quantity have to be verified in order to choose the ones that best
represents the actual body composition.
Methods - LBM was calculated for 44 patients examined with 18F-FDG PET/CT scans by means of James’
and Janmahasatians’ sex specific predictive equations and the results validated using a CT based method.
The latter method makes use of the eyes-to-thighs CT from the PET/CT aquisition protocol and segments
the voxels according to Hounsfield Units. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots
have been used to assess agreement between the various methods.
Results - A mean difference of 6.3kg (-15.1 kg to 2.5 kg LOA) between LBMjames and LBMCT1 was
found. This is higher than the observed mean difference of 3.8kg (-12.5 kg to 4.9 kg LOA) between LBMjan
and LBMCT1. In addition, LBMjan had higher ICC with LBMCT1 of rI = 0.87 (rL = 0.60, rU = 0.94) than
LBMjames with rI = 0.77 (rL = 0.11, rU = 0.91). Thus, we obtained better agreement between and LBMjan
and LBMCT1. Although there were exceptions, the overall effect on SUL values was that SULjames values
were greater than SULjan values.
Conclusion - From our results, we have verified the reliability of the LBMjan suggested formulas with a CT
derived reference standard. Compared with the more traditional and available set of equations LBMjames,
the LBMjan formulas tend to yield better agreement.