Table 3.
Lung cancer studies including multiple methods to measure MTV
| First author (ref) | Design | Purpose | Pt no. | Segmentation methods | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mehta et al. [52] | Retrospective | Predict outcome | 288 | 40%, 50% | Comparable (predictive) |
| Arslan et al. [53] | Retrospective | Predict outcome | 25 | SUV 2.5 / 50% | Comparable (predictive) |
| Yoo Ie et al. [54] | Retrospective | Predict outcome | 58 | SUV 2.5 / 25%, 50%, 75% / liver based | Liver based threshold was inferior. The others were comparable. |
| Lin et al. [55] | Retrospective | Predict outcome | 60 | SUV 2.5 / 40%, 50% | SUV 2.5 was better than 40%, 50%. |
| Abelson et al. [56] | Retrospective | Predict outcome | 54 | SUV 2, 4, 7, 10 / 50% | SUV 7, 10 were better than the others. |
| Kim et al. [57] | Retrospective | Predict outcome | 91 | SUV 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 | Comparable (predictive) |
| Harris et al. [58] | Retrospective | Predict outcome | 29 | 50% / Gradient | Comparable (predictive) |
| Carvalho et al. [59] | Retrospective | Predict outcome | 220 | 2.5, 3, 4 / 40%, 50% | Comparable (not predictive) |
| Lee et al. [60] | Retrospective | Predict outcome | 57 | 40%, 50% | Comparable (not predictive) |
| Park et al. [61] | Retrospective | Predict occult LN metastasis | 39 | SUV 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 | Comparable, SUV 2.0 selected |
| Burger et al. [23] | Retrospective | Predict treatment response | 44 | 42% / BSV | BSV had higher correlation with response. |
| Burger et al. [62] | Retrospective | Compare accuracy of the tumor delineation | 50 | 2.5 / 42% / BSV | BSV had higher correlation with reference volume. |
| Chen et al. [63] | Retrospective | Compare accuracy of the tumor delineation | 37 | SUV 2.5 / 40%, 50% / Adaptive | Adaptive method had higher correlation with CT volume. |
| Yu et al. [64] | Prospective | Compare accuracy of the tumor delineation | 15 | SUV 1.5~5.5 / 15~60% | Optimal relative and absolute thresholds were 31% ± 11% and 3.0 ± 1.6. |
| Biehl et al. [33] | Retrospective | Compare accuracy of the tumor delineation | 20 | 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% | The optimal threshold is different according to CT volume. |
| Laffon et al. [65] | Retrospective | Assess variability of TLG measurement | 13 | 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% | Variability was the lowest in 40%. |
BSV background subtracted volume, SUV standardized uptake value, __% relative fixed threshold using __% of SUVmax of the tumor, TLG total lesion glycolysis, CT computed tomography