A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Semi-automated F-FDG PET segmentation methods for tumor volume determination in Non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients: a literature review, implementation and multi-threshold evaluation. | LitMetric

In the treatment of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), multiple therapeutic options are available. Improving outcome predictions are essential to optimize treatment. The metabolic active tumor volume (MATV) has shown to be a prognostic factor in NHL. It is usually retrieved using semi-automated thresholding methods based on standardized uptake values (SUV), calculated from F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (F-FDG PET) images. However, there is currently no consensus method for NHL. The aim of this study was to review literature on different segmentation methods used, and to evaluate selected methods by using an in house created software tool. A software tool, ltiple UV hreshold (MUST)-segmenter was developed where tumor locations are identified by placing seed-points on the PET images, followed by subsequent region growing. Based on a literature review, 9 SUV thresholding methods were selected and MATVs were extracted. The MUST-segmenter was utilized in a cohort of 68 patients with NHL. Differences in MATVs were assessed with paired t-tests, and correlations and distributions figures. High variability and significant differences between the MATVs based on different segmentation methods ( < 0.05) were observed in the NHL patients. Median MATVs ranged from 35 to 211 cc. No consensus for determining MATV is available based on the literature. Using the MUST-segmenter with 9 selected SUV thresholding methods, we demonstrated a large and significant variation in MATVs. Identifying the most optimal segmentation method for patients with NHL is essential to further improve predictions of toxicity, response, and treatment outcomes, which can be facilitated by the MUST-segmenter.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9900370PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2023.01.023DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

segmentation methods
12
f-fdg pet
8
tumor volume
8
non-hodgkin lymphoma
8
literature review
8
thresholding methods
8
pet images
8
software tool
8
differences matvs
8
methods
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!