Measurement of metabolic tumor volume: static versus dynamic FDG scans

EJNMMI Research

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

Delineation method	Volume obtained from SUV image (mL)				Volume obtained from Patlak image (mL)				% Median difference^a	P value	P value^b
	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
VOI^A41	195.4	28.6	3.3	2402.5	86.1	11.9	2.5	1257.6	16.5	< 0.001	< 0.001
VOI^A50	20.3	6.0	2.1	121.2	22.2	6.8	1.9	107.3	8.1	0.364	0.215
VOI^A70	5.1	1.7	0.7	38.8	6.57	2.38	0.51	34.26	-13.3	0.001	0.001
VOI^RTL	33.3	7.2	0.3	538.2	17.78	6.75	0.26	111.14	7.5	0.040	0.042
VOI^Schaefer	158.0	14.7	3.4	2212.0	48.1	13.0	2.5	564.6	8.3	0.003	0.004
Grad^WT1	43.5	32.8	9.1	223.5	51.2	43.2	10.2	229.4	-9.1	0.025	0.085
Grad^WT2	12.4	6.8	1.5	74.1	14.2	8.6	1.6	85.3	-2.1	0.625	1.000

^aThe percentage difference was defined as $(\frac{Volum e_{SUV}}{Volum e_{Patlak}} - 1) \times 100 %$ . 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; Grad^WT1, gradient-based watershed first approach; Grad^WT2, gradient-based watershed second approach.