Lesion Analysis in PERCIST 1.0: Clinical Ease versus Research Requisite-Where Does the Balance Exist?

Background  Semiqualitative parameter SUVmax has been the most frequently used semiquantitative positron emission tomography (PET) parameter for response evaluation, but only metabolic activity of a single (most metabolic) lesion is predicted. Newer response parameters such as tumor lesion glycolysis (TLG) incorporating lesions' metabolic volume or whole-body metabolic tumor burden (MTBwb) are being explored for response evaluation. Evaluation and comparison of response with different semiquantitative PET parameters such as SUVmax and TLG in most metabolic lesion, multiple lesions (max of five), and MTBwb in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were made. The different PET parameters were analyzed for response evaluation, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Methods   ¹⁸ F-FDG-PET/CT (18-fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography) imaging was performed in 23 patients (M = 14, F = 9, mean age = 57.6 years) with stage IIIB-IV advanced NSCLC before initiation of therapy with oral estimated glomerular filtration rate-tyrosine kinase inhibitor for early and late response evaluation. The quantitative PET parameters such as SUVmax and TLG were measured in single (most metabolic) lesion, multiple lesions, and MTBwb. The parameters SUVmax, TLG, and MTBwb were compared for early and late response evaluation and analyzed for OS and PFS Results  No significant difference in change in response evaluation was seen in patients evaluated with most metabolic lesion, multiple lesions, or MTBwb. Difference in early (DC 22, NDC 1) and late (DC 20, NDC 3) response evaluation was seen that remained unchanged when lesions were measured in terms of number of lesions or the MTBwb. The early imaging was seen to be statistically significant to the OS compared with late imaging. Conclusions  Single (most metabolic) lesion shows similar disease response and OS to multiple lesions and MTBwb. Response evaluation by late imaging offered no significant advantage compared with early imaging. Thus, early response evaluation with SUVmax parameter offers a good balance between clinical ease and research requisition.

A method for evaluation of patient-specific lean body mass from limited-coverage CT images and its application in PERCIST: comparison with predictive equation

BACKGROUND

Standardized uptake value (SUV) normalized by lean body mass ([LBM] SUL) is recommended as metric by PERCIST 1.0. The James predictive equation (PE) is a frequently used formula for LBM estimation, but may cause substantial error for an individual. The purpose of this study was to introduce a novel and reliable method for estimating LBM by limited-coverage (LC) CT images from PET/CT examinations and test its validity, then to analyse whether SUV normalised by LC-based LBM could change the PERCIST 1.0 response classifications, based on LBM estimated by the James PE.

METHODS

First, 199 patients who received whole-body PET/CT examinations were retrospectively retrieved. A patient-specific LBM equation was developed based on the relationship between LC fat volumes (FV_LC) and whole-body fat mass (FM_WB). This equation was cross-validated with an independent sample of 97 patients who also received whole-body PET/CT examinations. Its results were compared with the measurement of LBM from whole-body CT (reference standard) and the results of the James PE. Then, 241 patients with solid tumours who underwent PET/CT examinations before and after treatment were retrospectively retrieved. The treatment responses were evaluated according to the PE-based and LC-based PERCIST 1.0. Concordance between them was assessed using Cohen's κ coefficient and Wilcoxon's signed-ranks test. The impact of differing LBM algorithms on PERCIST 1.0 classification was evaluated.

RESULTS

The FV_LC were significantly correlated with the FM_WB (r=0.977). Furthermore, the results of LBM measurement evaluated with LC images were much closer to the reference standard than those obtained by the James PE. The PE-based and LC-based PERCIST 1.0 classifications were discordant in 27 patients (11.2%; κ = 0.823, P=0.837). These discordant patients' percentage changes of peak SUL (SUL_peak) were all in the interval above or below 10% from the threshold (±30%), accounting for 43.5% (27/62) of total patients in this region. The degree of variability is related to changes in LBM before and after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

LBM algorithm-dependent variability in PERCIST 1.0 classification is a notable issue. SUV normalised by LC-based LBM could change PERCIST 1.0 response classifications based on LBM estimated by the James PE, especially for patients with a percentage variation of SUL_peak close to the threshold.

Inter-observer agreement improves with PERCIST 1.0 as opposed to qualitative evaluation in non-small cell lung cancer patients evaluated with F-18-FDG PET/CT early in the course of chemo-radiotherapy

Background

The purpose of this study is to determine whether a qualitative approach or a semi-quantitative approach provides the most robust method for early response evaluation with 2′-deoxy-2′-[¹⁸F]fluoro-d-glucose (F-18-FDG) positron emission tomography combined with whole body computed tomography (PET/CT) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

In this study eight Nuclear Medicine consultants analyzed F-18-FDG PET/CT scans from 35 patients with locally advanced NSCLC. Scans were performed at baseline and after 2 cycles of chemotherapy. Each observer used two different methods for evaluation: (1) PET response criteria in solid tumors (PERCIST) 1.0 and (2) a qualitative approach. Both methods allocate patients into one of four response categories (complete and partial metabolic response (CMR and PMR) and stable and progressive metabolic disease (SMD and PMD)). The inter-observer agreement was evaluated using Fleiss’ kappa for multiple raters, Cohens kappa for comparison of the two methods, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for comparison of lean body mass corrected standardized uptake value (SUL) peak measurements.

Results

The agreement between observers when determining the percentage change in SULpeak was “almost perfect”, with ICC = 0.959. There was a strong agreement among observers allocating patients to the different response categories with a Fleiss kappa of 0.76 (0.71–0.81). In 22 of the 35 patients, complete agreement was observed with PERCIST 1.0. The agreement was lower when using the qualitative method, moderate, having a Fleiss kappa of 0.60 (0.55–0.64). Complete agreement was achieved in only 10 of the 35 patients. The difference between the two methods was statistically significant (p < 0.005) (chi-squared).

Comparing the two methods for each individual observer showed Cohen’s kappa values ranging from 0.64 to 0.79, translating into a strong agreement between the two methods.

Conclusions

PERCIST 1.0 provides a higher overall agreement between observers than the qualitative approach in categorizing early treatment response in NSCLC patients. The inter-observer agreement is in fact strong when using PERCIST 1.0 even when the level of instruction is purposely kept to a minimum in order to mimic the everyday situation. The variability is largely owing to the subjective elements of the method.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13550-016-0223-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.