Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Mean, median, minimum, and maximum values of metabolic volumes and median differences for GI cancer

From: Measurement of metabolic tumor volume: static versus dynamic FDG scans

Delineation method Volume obtained from SUV image (mL) Volume obtained from Patlak image (mL) % Median differencea P value P valueb
  Mean Median Min Max Mean Median Min Max    
VOI50 190.4 15.4 2.7 2297.8 65.2 10.1 2.1 822.9 28.1 < 0.001 < 0.001
VOI70 10.5 3.9 1.3 57.6 8.8 3.5 1.0 45.2 18.5 < 0.001 < 0.001
VOIA41 195.4 28.6 3.3 2402.5 86.1 11.9 2.5 1257.6 16.5 < 0.001 < 0.001
VOIA50 20.3 6.0 2.1 121.2 22.2 6.8 1.9 107.3 8.1 0.364 0.215
VOIA70 5.1 1.7 0.7 38.8 6.57 2.38 0.51 34.26 -13.3 0.001 0.001
VOIRTL 33.3 7.2 0.3 538.2 17.78 6.75 0.26 111.14 7.5 0.040 0.042
VOISchaefer 158.0 14.7 3.4 2212.0 48.1 13.0 2.5 564.6 8.3 0.003 0.004
GradWT1 43.5 32.8 9.1 223.5 51.2 43.2 10.2 229.4 -9.1 0.025 0.085
GradWT2 12.4 6.8 1.5 74.1 14.2 8.6 1.6 85.3 -2.1 0.625 1.000
  1. aThe percentage difference was defined as Volum e SUV Volum e Patlak  -  1 × 100 % . The average tumor-to-background ratio was 7.4 (range 2.4 to 31.6) and 16.0 (range 3.0 to 32.0) when derived from SUV and Patlak images, respectively. bWithout visual outliers. SUV, standardized uptake value; min, minimum; max, maximum; VOI, volumes of interest; GradWT1, gradient-based watershed first approach; GradWT2, gradient-based watershed second approach.