Comparison of segmentation methods for evaluating liver uptake of 18F-FDG in PET/CT images

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29384/rbfm.2025.v19.19849001869

Keywords:

Liver, Segmentation, 18F-FDG, PET/CT, Multiple Myeloma

Abstract

Positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (PET/CT) using the radiopharmaceutical 18F-FDG is widely employed in oncology, with the liver often used as an internal reference for quantifying metabolic uptake, including the Metabolic Tumor Volume (MTV). Radiotracer uptake is expressed by the Standardized Uptake Value (SUV), whose determination is influenced by the segmentation method adopted. This study aimed to compare three segmentation methods for assessing hepatic SUV in PET/CT scans of 74 patients with multiple myeloma: (i) a fixed spherical volume of interest (VOI), 2 cm in radius, positioned in the right liver lobe, (ii) auto-segmentation by CT image applying a global threshold with manual adjustments (AS), and (iii) segmentation by artificial intelligence (AI) using the TotalSegmentator software. Images of patients seen at the Nuclear Medicine Service of Unicamp between 2013 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Statistical comparison among methods was performed using the Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by Dunn’s post hoc test. The results showed that mean SUV did not present significant differences among the three methods. However, for maximum SUV and peak SUV, statistically significant differences were observed in relation to the spherical VOI, while AS and AI did not differ from each other. Furthermore, a discrepancy of approximately 29.3% was observed between the volumes segmented by AS and AI. These findings suggest that, although more complex methods allow segmentation of the entire liver, the spherical VOI represents a simple and reliable alternative for obtaining the mean SUV, a parameter widely used in clinical analyses and research. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. FFletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, Siegel BA, Lowe VJ, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(3):480-508.

2. Santos DF, Takahashi ME, Camacho M, de Lima MDCL, Amorim BJ, Rohren EM, Etchebehere E. Whole-body tumor burden in PET/CT expert review. Clin Transl Imaging. 2023;11(1):5-22.

3. Takahashi MES, Santos DF, Costa LB, Amorim BJ, Camacho M, Etchebehere M, et al. Proposal for a quantitative 18F-FDG PET/CT metabolic parameter to assess the intensity of bone involvement in multiple myeloma. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):16429.

4. Kubota K, Itoh M, Ozaki K, Yoshioka S, Okada S, Tashiro M, et al. Effects of blood glucose level on FDG uptake by liver: a FDG-PET/CT study. Nucl Med Biol. 2011;38(3):347-51.

5. Laffon E, de Clermont H, Vernejoux JM, Mariano-Goulart D, Meyer P, Marthan R. Is liver SUV stable over time in 18F-FDG PET imaging? J Nucl Med Technol. 2011;39(4):258-63.

6. Barrington SF, et al. Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1824-33.

7. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. EEur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42(2): 328-54.

8. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biologicalimage analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9(7):676-82.

9. Wasserthal J, Breit HC, Meyer MT, Rippel O, Kohl S. TotalSegmentator: robust segmentation of 104 anatomic structures in CT images. Radiol Artif Intell. 2023;5(5):e230024.

10. Cypess AM, Lehman S, Williams G, Tal I, Rodman D, Goldfine AB, et al. Identification and importance of brown adipose tissue in adult humans. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(15):1509-17.

Published

2025-12-09

How to Cite

Cardoso de Souza, F., Emilia Seren Takahashi, M., & Darío Ramos, C. (2025). Comparison of segmentation methods for evaluating liver uptake of 18F-FDG in PET/CT images. Brazilian Journal of Medical Physics, 19, 869. https://doi.org/10.29384/rbfm.2025.v19.19849001869

Issue

Section

Artigo Original

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.