# Variability of Metabolic Rate and Distribution Volume Quantification in Whole-Body Parametric PATLAK [18F]-FDG PET/CT—A Prospective Trial in Patients with Lung Cancer

## TL;DR

This study shows that different methods to measure FDG metabolism in lung cancer patients lead to significant variability, especially in lymph nodes, and suggests a conversion factor to improve consistency.

## Contribution

The study introduces a conversion factor between mean and max quantification methods for retrospective FDG-PET data comparisons.

## Key findings

- All quantification methods showed high diagnostic accuracy for differentiating benign from malignant lesions.
- Variability in MR-FDG and DV-FDG was greater in lymph nodes than in lung lesions.
- A 40% conversion factor between mean and max methods improves agreement for lung lesions.

## Abstract

Background: The recent introduction of whole-body positron emission tomography/ computed tomography (PET/CT) scanners and multi-bed, multi-time point acquisition technique enable calculating fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) kinetics in the whole body. However, validating parametric, Patlak-derived data is difficult on phantoms. Methods: This prospective study investigated the effect of quantification methods mean, max, and peak on the metabolic rate (MR-FDG) and distribution volume (DV-FDG) quantification, as well as the diagnostic accuracy of parametric Patlak FDG-PET scans in diagnosing lung lesions and lymph node metastases, using histopathology and follow-up as reference standards. Dynamic whole-body FDG PET was acquired for 80 minutes in 34 patients with indeterminate lung lesions and kinetic parameters extracted from lung lesions and representative mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes. Results: All quantification methods—mean, max, and peak—demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (AUC: MR-FDG: 0.987–0.991 and 0.893–0.905; DV-FDG: 0.948–0.975 and 0.812–0.825) for differentiating benign from malignant lymph nodes and lung lesions. Differences in the magnitude of MR-FDG (−4.76–14.09) and DV-FDG (−10.64–46.10%) were substantial across methods. Variability was more pronounced in lymph nodes (MR-FDG: 1.37–3.48) than in lung lesions (MR-FDG: 3.31–5.04). The variability was lowest between mean and max quantification, with percentage differences of 40.87 ± 5.69% for MR-FDG and 39.26 ± 7.68% for DV-FDG. Conclusions: The choice of method to measure MR-FDG and DV-FDG greatly influences the results, especially in smaller lesions with large and systematic differences. For lung lesions, a conversion factor between mean and max methods of 40% provides acceptable agreement, facilitating retrospective comparisons of measurements, e.g., in meta-analyses.