4.7 Article

Optimum Lean Body Formulation for Correction of Standardized Uptake Value in PET Imaging

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Volume 55, Issue 9, Pages 1481-1484

Publisher

SOC NUCLEAR MEDICINE INC
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.136986

Keywords

PET; FDG; SUV; SUL; LBM; gender-specific

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA006973] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Standardized uptake value (SUV) normalized by lean body mass ([LBM] SUL) is becoming a popular metric for quantitative assessment of clinical PET. Sex-specific quantitative effects of different LBM formulations on liver SUV have not been well studied. Methods: F-18-FDG PET/CT scans from 1,033 consecutive adult (501 women, 532 men) studies were reviewed. Liver SUV was measured with a 3-cm-diameter spheric region of interest in the right hepatic lobe and corrected for LBM using the sex-specific James and Janmahasatian formulations. Results: Body weight was 71.0 +/- 20.7 kg (range, 18.0-175.0 kg) and 82.9 +/- 18.6 kg (range, 23.0-159.0 kg) for women and men, respectively. SUV, based on body weight, has a significantly positive correlation with weight for both women (r = 0.58, P < 0.0001) and men (r = 0.54, P < 0.0001). This correlation is reduced in men (r = 0.11, P = 0.01) and becomes negative for women (r = -0.35, P = 0.0001) with the James formulation of SUL. This negative correlation was eliminated when the very obese women (body mass index >= 35) were excluded from the analysis (r = 0.13, P = 0.8). The Janmahasatian formulation annuls the correlation between SUL and weight for women (r = 0.04, P = 0.4) and decreases it for men (r = 0.13, P = 0.003). Conclusion: Hepatic correction with the more common James formulation for body lean mass breaks down and shows low SUL values in very obese patients. The adoption of the Janmahasatian formula for estimation of LBM in modem PET scanners and display workstations is recommended, in view of the increasing frequency of obesity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available