Search

Objective: Technological innovations in single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) have enabled a more accurate quantitative evaluation of the uptake, and the standardized uptake value (SUV) can be measured as a semi-quantitative value, as in positron emission tomography. Nevertheless, the reliability of the SUV of bone SPECT has not been well established. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the test–retest repeatability of the SUV of bone SPECT/CT in clinical settings. Methods: This prospective study recruited patients with prostate cancer planning to receive bone SPECT/CT for the evaluation of bone abnormality between August 2017 and September 2019. Bone images were acquired twice by an integrated SPECT/CT scanner (Symbia Intevo, Siemens) within a 4- to 10-day interval. The maximum SUV (SUVmax) and peak SUV (SUVpeak) were calculated for the volumes of interests on the normal bone areas, degeneration/fracture lesions, and metastatic lesions. To determine repeatability, we calculated statistical indicators, including intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), repeatability coefficient (RC), and mean absolute percentage difference (MAPD). For the ICC, the 95% confidential interval (CI) was also calculated, and an ICC of ≥ 0.8 was defined as an almost perfect correlation. Results: Twelve male patients were enrolled in the study (58–86 years; median, 71 years), and a total of 229 volumes of the interest were included in the analyses. The ICCs were 0.968 [95% CI (0.959, 0.975)] for SUVmax and 0.976 [95% CI (0.969, 0.981)] for SUVpeak. The RCs of the relative difference were 30.7% for SUVmax and 27.6% for SUVpeak, and the MAPDs (± standardized deviation) of all lesions were 12.3 ± 9.9% for SUVmax and 11.5 ± 8.3% for SUVpeak. The RCs and the MAPDs showed comparable value with the previous report regarding repeatability studies on PET. Conclusion: An almost perfect correlation was demonstrated by repeated SUVmax and SUVpeak measured by quantitative integrated SPECT/CT. The quantitative values could be reliable indicators in patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]