Advanced Search

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

ISSUES AND ARTICLES   MOST READ   eTOC

CURRENT ISSUETHE 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 2,413

Frequency: Quarterly

ISSN 1824-4785

Online ISSN 1827-1936

 

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

ADDED VALUE OF MORPHOLOGICAL IMAGING TECHNIQUES 

    REVIEWS

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

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.

language: English


FULL TEXT  REPRINTS

top of page