4.6 Article

Pilot Study: Evaluation of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Measurement Strategies for Positron Emission Tomography Correlation in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 824-832

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-014-9707-y

关键词

Cancer; Dual-energy CT; Informatics; Pancreas; Pancreatic adenocarcinoma; PET; PET/CT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We sought to determine whether dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) measurements correlate with positron emission tomography (PET) standardized uptake values (SUVs) in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and to determine the optimal DECT imaging variables and modeling strategy to produce the highest correlation with maximum SUV (SUVmax). We reviewed 25 patients with unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma seen at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, who had PET-computed tomography (PET/CT) and enhanced DECT performed the same week between March 25, 2010 and December 9, 2011. For each examination, DECT measurements were taken using one of three methods: (1) average values of three tumor regions of interest (ROIs) (method 1); (2) one ROI in the area of highest subjective DECT enhancement (method 2); and (3) one ROI in the area corresponding to PET SUVmax (method 3). There were 133 DECT variables using method 1, and 89 using the other methods. Univariate and multivariate analysis regression models were used to identify important correlations between DECT variables and PET SUVmax. Both R (2) and adjusted R (2) were calculated for the multivariate model to compensate for the increased number of predictors. The average SUVmax was 5 (range, 1.8-12.0). Multivariate analysis of DECT imaging variables outperformed univariate analysis (r = 0.91; R (2) = 0.82; adjusted R (2) = 0.75 vs r < 0.58; adjusted R (2) < 0.34). Method 3 had the highest correlation with PET SUVmax (R (2) = 0.82), followed by method 1 (R (2) = 0.79) and method 2 (R (2) = 0.57). DECT thus has clinical potential as a surrogate for, or as a complement to, PET in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据