Determination of Skeletal Tumor Burden on 18F-Fluoride PET/CT

  • Ana Emília Brito
  • Elba Etchebehere
Part of the Clinicians’ Guides to Radionuclide Hybrid Imaging book series (CGRHI)


Since first proposed in 1999 by Larson et al. [1], the use of volumetric quantification techniques on PET/CT exams has become increasingly popular to evaluate tumor burden, especially with 18F-FDG. The volumetric quantification of tumor burden has been shown to correlate with prognosis and is also an objective means to evaluate response to treatment in a variety of cancers [2].

Skeletal tumor burden (FTV and TFL) is obtained by volumetric quantification of 18F-fluoride PET/CT studies and could be used as an imaging biomarker for evaluation of prognosis and response to therapy for many cancers. FTV and TFL can be measured manually or semiautomatically. We will demonstrate the step-by-step quantification process both manually and semi-automatically.


  1. 1.
    Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging. 1999;2:159–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rahim MK, Kim SE, So H, et al. Recent trends in PET image interpretations using volumetric and texture-based quantification methods in nuclear oncology. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;48:1–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Etchebehere EC, Araujo JC, Fox PS, Swanston NM, Macapinlac HA, Rohren EM. Prognostic factors in patients treated with 223Ra: the role of skeletal tumor burden on baseline 18F-fluoride PET/CT in predicting overall survival. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1177–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Etchebehere EC, Araujo JC, Milton DR, et al. Skeletal tumor burden on baseline 18F-fluoride PET/CT predicts bone marrow failure after 223Ra therapy. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:268–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wassberg C, Lubberink M, Sörensen J, Johansson S. Repeatability of quantitative parameters of 18F-fluoride PET/CT and biochemical tumour and specific bone remodelling markers in prostate cancer bone metastases. EJNMMI Res. 2017;7:42.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brito AE, Santos A, Sasse AD, et al. 18F-Fluoride PET/CT tumor burden quantification predicts survival in breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8:36001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brito AET, Mourato F, Santos A, Mosci C, Ramos C, Etchebehere E. Validation of the semi-automatic quantification of 18F-fluoride PET/CT whole-body skeletal tumor burden. J Nucl Med Technol. 2018;46:378.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lapa P, Marques M, Costa G, Iagaru A, Pedroso de Lima J. Assessment of skeletal tumour burden on 18F-NaF PET/CT using a new quantitative method. Nucl Med Commun. 2017;38:325–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oldan J, Hawkins A, Chin B. 18F sodium fluoride PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer: quantification of normal tissues, benign degenerative lesions, and malignant lesions. World J Nucl Med. 2016;15:102.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sabbah N, Jackson T, Mosci C, et al. 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT in oncology. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:e228–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJG, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;42:328–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rohren EM, Etchebehere EC, Araujo JC, et al. Determination of skeletal tumor burden on 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1507–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin C, Bradshaw T, Perk T, et al. Repeatability of quantitative 18F-NaF PET: a multicenter study. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1872–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taghanaki SA, Duggan N, Ma H, et al. Segmentation-free direct tumor volume and metabolic activity estimation from PET scans. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2017;63:52–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Win AZ, Aparici CM. Factors affecting uptake of NaF-18 by the normal skeleton. J Clin Med Res. 2014;6:435.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oldan JD, Turkington TG, Choudhury K, Chin BB. Quantitative differences in [(18)F] NaF PET/CT: TOF versus non-TOF measurements. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;5:504–14.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Win AZ, Aparici CM. Normal SUV values measured from NaF18- PET/CT bone scan studies. PLoS One. 2014;9:e108429.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Emília Brito
    • 1
  • Elba Etchebehere
    • 2
  1. 1.Real Nuclear, Real Hospital Português de Beneficência em PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  2. 2.Division of Nuclear MedicineUniversity of Campinas (UNICAMP)CampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations