Is there any maximum standardized uptake value variation among positron emission tomography scanners for mediastinal staging in non-small cell lung cancer?

19Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) varies among positron emission tomography-integrated computed tomography (PET/CT) centers in the staging of non-small cell lung cancer. We evaluated the ratio of the optimum SUVmax cut-off for the lymph nodes to the max median SUVmax of the primary tumor (ratioSUVmax) to determine SUVmax variations between PET/CT scanners. The previously described PET Predictive ratio (PPR) was also evaluated. PET/CT and mediastinoscopy andyor thoracotomy were performed on 337 consecutive patients between September 2005 and March 2009. Thirty-six patients were excluded from the study. The pathological results were correlated with the PETyCT findings. Histopathological examination was performed on 1136 N2 lymph nodes using 10 different PET/CT centers. The majority of patients (group A: 240) used the same PET/CT scanner at four different centers. Others patients were categorized as group B. The ratio SUVmax for groups A and B was 0.18 and 0.22, respectively. The same ratio for centers 1, 2, 3 and 4 was 0.2, 0.21, 0.21, and 0.23, max respectively. The optimal cut-off value of the PPR to predict mediastinal lymph node pathology for malignancy was 0.49 (likelihood ratio q2.02; sensitivity 70%, specificity 65%). We conclude that the ratioSUVmax was similar for different scanners. Thus, SUVmax is a valuable cut-off for comparing-centers. © 2011 Published by European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Iskendera, I., Kadioglub, S. Z., Kosarb, A., Atasalihib, A., & Kirb, A. (2011). Is there any maximum standardized uptake value variation among positron emission tomography scanners for mediastinal staging in non-small cell lung cancer? Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, 12(6), 965–969. https://doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2010.258103

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free