Advertisement

Normalization by bone volume instead of body weight or lean body mass may be better for quantifying skeletal burden in fibrous dysplasia using sodium fluoride PET/CT

  • Paulo Schiavom DuarteEmail author
  • Marcelo Tatit Sapienza
Letter to the Editor
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Orthopedics
  2. Orthopedics

Dear Sir,

We would like to comment on the article “Quantifying skeletal burden in fibrous dysplasia using sodium fluoride PET/CT” published in online first articles section of the EJNMMI by van der Bruggen et al. [1]. In this article, it was addressed the relationship between quantitative parameters of physiological and pathological Na18F-PET/CT uptake and structured clinical and biochemical measures of disease in patients with fibrous dysplasia, and it was also evaluated the relationship between Na18F-PET/CT parameters to classical skeletal burden score (SBS) [2] on planar bone scintigraphy and bisphosphonate treatment. The authors performed several analyses including a comparison of two normalization techniques for calculation of standardized uptake values (SUV) that were further used for the determination of the volumes of interests (VOIs): the traditional SUV normalized by body weight [3] and a variation of the SUV normalized by lean body mass (SUL) [4]. In this particular...

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Bruggen W, Hagelstein-Rotman M, de Geus-Oei L-F, Smit F, Dijkstra PDS, Appelman-Dijkstra NM, et al. Quantifying skeletal burden in fibrous dysplasia using sodium fluoride PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04657-1.
  2. 2.
    Collins MT, Kushner H, Reynolds JC, Chebli C, Kelly MH, Gupta A, et al. An instrument to measure skeletal burden and predict functional outcome in fibrous dysplasia of bone. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;20:219–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rohren EM, Etchebehere EC, Araujo JC, Hobbs BP, Swanston NM, Everding M, et al. Determination of skeletal tumor burden on 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1507–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Janmahasatian S, Duffull SB, Ash S, Ward LC, Byrne NM, Green B. Quantification of lean bodyweight. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2005;44:1051–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marin JFG, Duarte PS, de Amorim de Carvalho JW, Sado HN, Sapienza MT, Buchpiguel CA. Comparison of the variability of SUV normalized by skeletal volume with the variability of SUV normalized by body weight in 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med Technol. 2019;47:60–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carvalho G, Marin JFG, Garcez AT, Duarte PS, Sapienza MT, Buchpiguel CA. SUV normalized by skeletal volume on 18F-fluoride PET/CT studies. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:529–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aide N, Lasnon C, Veit-Haibach P, Sera T, Sattler B, Boellaard R. EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boellaard R. Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):11S–20S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology. 1993;189:847–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tahari AK, Chien D, Azadi JR, Wahl RL. Optimum lean body formulation for correction of standardized uptake value in PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1481–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gafita A, Calais J, Franz C, Rauscher I, Wang H, Roberstson A, et al. Evaluation of SUV normalized by lean body mass (SUL) in Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT: a bi-centric analysis. EJNMMI Res. 2019;9:103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blau M, Ganatra R, Bender MA. 18F-fluoride for bone imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 1972;2:31–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kurdziel KA, Shih JH, Apolo AB, Lindenberg L, Mena E, McKinney YY, et al. The kinetics and reproducibility of 18F-sodium fluoride for oncology using current PET camera technology. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1175–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Nuclear MedicineSão Paulo Cancer Institute (ICESP)São PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology and OncologyMedical School of University of São Paulo (FMUSP)São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations