Home > Publications database > Variability of Metabolic Rate and Distribution Volume Quantification in Whole-Body Parametric PATLAK [18F]-FDG PET/CT-A Prospective Trial in Patients with Lung Cancer. > print

001     302839
005     20250717114059.0
024 7 _ |a 10.3390/diagnostics15131719
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:40647718
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a pmc:PMC12249058
|2 pmc
037 _ _ |a DKFZ-2025-01379
041 _ _ |a English
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Ursprung, Stephan
|0 0000-0003-2476-178X
|b 0
245 _ _ |a Variability of Metabolic Rate and Distribution Volume Quantification in Whole-Body Parametric PATLAK [18F]-FDG PET/CT-A Prospective Trial in Patients with Lung Cancer.
260 _ _ |a Basel
|c 2025
|b MDPI
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1752664726_10334
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a Background: The recent introduction of whole-body positron emission tomography/ computed tomography (PET/CT) scanners and multi-bed, multi-time point acquisition technique enable calculating fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) kinetics in the whole body. However, validating parametric, Patlak-derived data is difficult on phantoms. Methods: This prospective study investigated the effect of quantification methods mean, max, and peak on the metabolic rate (MR-FDG) and distribution volume (DV-FDG) quantification, as well as the diagnostic accuracy of parametric Patlak FDG-PET scans in diagnosing lung lesions and lymph node metastases, using histopathology and follow-up as reference standards. Dynamic whole-body FDG PET was acquired for 80 minutes in 34 patients with indeterminate lung lesions and kinetic parameters extracted from lung lesions and representative mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes. Results: All quantification methods-mean, max, and peak-demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (AUC: MR-FDG: 0.987-0.991 and 0.893-0.905; DV-FDG: 0.948-0.975 and 0.812-0.825) for differentiating benign from malignant lymph nodes and lung lesions. Differences in the magnitude of MR-FDG (-4.76-14.09) and DV-FDG (-10.64-46.10%) were substantial across methods. Variability was more pronounced in lymph nodes (MR-FDG: 1.37-3.48) than in lung lesions (MR-FDG: 3.31-5.04). The variability was lowest between mean and max quantification, with percentage differences of 40.87 ± 5.69% for MR-FDG and 39.26 ± 7.68% for DV-FDG. Conclusions: The choice of method to measure MR-FDG and DV-FDG greatly influences the results, especially in smaller lesions with large and systematic differences. For lung lesions, a conversion factor between mean and max methods of 40% provides acceptable agreement, facilitating retrospective comparisons of measurements, e.g., in meta-analyses.
536 _ _ |a 899 - ohne Topic (POF4-899)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899
|c POF4-899
|f POF IV
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: inrepo02.dkfz.de
650 _ 7 |a FDG
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a PET/CT
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a Patlak
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a dynamic PET
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a parametric FDG
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a whole-body
|2 Other
700 1 _ |a Zender, Lars
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Ghibes, Patrick
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Hagen, Florian
|0 0000-0002-1215-9428
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Nikolaou, Konstantin
|0 0000-0003-2668-7325
|b 4
700 1 _ |a la Fougère, Christian
|0 0000-0001-7519-0417
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Weissinger, Matthias
|0 0000-0003-2044-3047
|b 6
773 _ _ |a 10.3390/diagnostics15131719
|g Vol. 15, no. 13, p. 1719 -
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2662336-5
|n 13
|p 1719
|t Diagnostics
|v 15
|y 2025
|x 2075-4418
909 C O |o oai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:302839
|p VDB
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 4
|6 0000-0003-2668-7325
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 5
|6 0000-0001-7519-0417
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Programmungebundene Forschung
|l ohne Programm
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-890
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-800
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v ohne Topic
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2025
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b DIAGNOSTICS : 2022
|d 2025-01-07
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2025-01-07
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2025-01-07
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0501
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ Seal
|d 2024-08-29T10:48:13Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
|d 2024-08-29T10:48:13Z
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ : Anonymous peer review
|d 2024-08-29T10:48:13Z
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV
|2 V:(DE-HGF)
|b DOAJ
|d 2024-08-29T10:48:13Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0600
|2 StatID
|b Ebsco Academic Search
|d 2025-01-07
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b ASC
|d 2025-01-07
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2025-01-07
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0160
|2 StatID
|b Essential Science Indicators
|d 2025-01-07
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1110
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Clinical Medicine
|d 2025-01-07
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0113
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
|d 2025-01-07
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2025-01-07
915 _ _ |a IF < 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9900
|2 StatID
|d 2025-01-07
915 _ _ |a Article Processing Charges
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0561
|2 StatID
|d 2025-01-07
915 _ _ |a Fees
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0700
|2 StatID
|d 2025-01-07
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)TU01-20160331
|k TU01
|l DKTK Koordinierungsstelle Tübingen
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)TU01-20160331
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED

LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21