AUTHOR=Tanaka Aruki , Sekine Tetsuro , ter Voert Edwin E. G. W. , Zeimpekis Konstantinos G. , Delso Gaspar , de Galiza Barbosa Felipe , Warnock Geoffrey , Kumita Shin-ichiro , Veit Haibach Patrick , Huellner Martin TITLE=Reproducibility of Standardized Uptake Values Including Volume Metrics Between TOF-PET-MR and TOF-PET-CT JOURNAL=Frontiers in Medicine VOLUME=9 YEAR=2022 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2022.796085 DOI=10.3389/fmed.2022.796085 ISSN=2296-858X ABSTRACT=Purpose

To investigate the reproducibility of tracer uptake measurements, including volume metrics, such as metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and tumor lesion glycolysis (TLG) obtained by TOF-PET-CT and TOF-PET-MR.

Materials and Methods

Eighty consecutive patients with different oncologic diagnoses underwent TOF-PET-CT (Discovery 690; GE Healthcare) and TOF-PET-MR (SIGNA PET-MR; GE Healthcare) on the same day with single dose−18F-FDG injection. The scan order, PET-CT following or followed by PET-MR, was randomly assigned. A spherical volume of interest (VOI) of 30 mm was placed on the liver in accordance with the PERCIST criteria. For liver, the maximum and mean standard uptake value for body weight (SUV) and lean body mass (SUL) were obtained. For tumor delineation, VOI with a threshold of 40 and 50% of SUVmax was used (VOI40 and VOI50). The SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, MTV and TLG were calculated. The measurements were compared between the two scanners.

Results

In total, 80 tumor lesions from 35 patients were evaluated. There was no statistical difference observed in liver regions, whereas in tumor lesions, SUVmax, SUV mean, and SUVpeak of PET-MR were significantly underestimated (p < 0.001) in both VOI40 and VOI50. Among volume metrics, there was no statistical difference observed except TLG on VOI50 (p = 0.03). Correlation between PET-CT and PET-MR of each metrics were calculated. There was a moderate correlation of the liver SUV and SUL metrics (r = 0.63–0.78). In tumor lesions, SUVmax and SUVmean had a stronger correlation with underestimation in PET-MR on VOI 40 (SUVmax and SUVmean; r = 0.92 and 0.91 with slope = 0.71 and 0.72, respectively). In the evaluation of MTV and TLG, the stronger correlations were observed both on VOI40 (MTV and TLG; r = 0.75 and 0.92) and VOI50 (MTV and TLG; r = 0.88 and 0.95) between PET-CT and PET-MR.

Conclusion

PET metrics on TOF-PET-MR showed a good correlation with that of TOF-PET-CT. SUVmax and SUVpeak of tumor lesions were underestimated by 16% on PET-MRI. MTV with % threshold can be regarded as identical volumetric markers for both TOF-PET-CT and TOF-PET-MR.