Home > Journals > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging > Past Issues > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2016 March;60(1) > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2016 March;60(1):1-11

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING

A Journal on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging


A Journal on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Affiliated to the Society of Radiopharmaceutical Sciences and to the International Research Group of Immunoscintigraphy
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,481


eTOC

 

REVIEWS  ADDED VALUE OF MORPHOLOGICAL IMAGING TECHNIQUES


The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2016 March;60(1):1-11

Copyright © 2016 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Review of clinically accessible methods to determine lean body mass for normalization of standardized uptake values

Joke DEVRIESE 1, Laurence BEELS 2, Alex MAES 2, Christophe VAN DE WIELE 2, Olivier GHEYSENS 2, Hans POTTEL 1

1 Department of Public Health and Primary Care KU Leuven campus Kortrijk, Kortrijk, Belgium; 2 Department of Nuclear Medicine AZ Groeninge, Kortrijk, Belgium


PDF  


With the routine use of 2-deoxy-2-[18F]-fluoro-D-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scans, metabolic activity of tumors can be quantitatively assessed through calculation of SUVs. One possible normalization parameter for the standardized uptake value (SUV) is lean body mass (LBM), which is generally calculated through predictive equations based on height and body weight. (Semi-)direct measurements of LBM could provide more accurate results in cancer populations than predictive equations based on healthy populations. In this context, four methods to determine LBM are reviewed: bioelectrical impedance analysis, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. CT, and magnetic resonance imaging. These methods were selected based on clinical accessibility and are compared in terms of methodology, precision and accuracy. By assessing each method’s specific advantages and limitations, a well-considered choice of method can hopefully lead to more accurate SUVLBM values, hence more accurate quantitative assessment of 18F-FDG PET images.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail

Hans.Pottel@kuleuven-kulak.be