Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHalsne, Trygve
dc.contributor.authorMüller, Ebba Gløersen
dc.contributor.authorSpiten, Ann-Eli
dc.contributor.authorSherwani, Alexander Gul
dc.contributor.authorMikalsen, Lars Tore G
dc.contributor.authorRootwelt-Revheim, Mona-Elisabeth
dc.contributor.authorStokke, Caroline
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-07T14:00:25Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-03-19T10:14:53Z
dc.date.available2019-02-07T14:00:25Z
dc.date.available2019-03-19T10:14:53Z
dc.date.issued2018-03-28
dc.identifier.citationHalsne 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):253-259en
dc.identifier.issn0091-4916
dc.identifier.issn0091-4916
dc.identifier.issn1535-5675
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10642/6796
dc.description.abstractDue 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.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSociety of Nuclear Medicineen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJournal of Nuclear Medicine Technology;Vol. 46, No. 3
dc.subjectStandardized uptake valuesen
dc.subjectLean body massesen
dc.subjectPositron emission tomographiesen
dc.subjectCT-based segmentationsen
dc.titleThe effect of new formulas for lean body mass on lean- body-mass-normalized SUV in oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CTen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.typePeer revieweden
dc.date.updated2019-02-07T14:00:25Z
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionen
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.117.204586
dc.identifier.cristin1618000
dc.source.journalJournal of Nuclear Medicine Technology


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record