Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-targeted PET is valuable for meningioma imaging due to high SSTR expression. [18F]SiTATE, a novel tracer, is not only promising for imaging neuroendocrine tumors but also for meningiomas. Standardized delineation methods on [18F]SiTATE PET are lacking. This study correlates CT-based volumes with PET-based delineation approaches to identify a threshold for standardized [18F]SiTATE PET volume assessment. METHODS: Patients with well-delineated, extraosseous meningioma on CT (≥ 1mL) who underwent [18F]SiTATE PET/CT were included. Volumes were assessed on contrast-enhanced CT and correlated with PET-based delineation approaches: (I) fixed SUV threshold, (II) isocontour thresholding relative to SUVmax (SUV%), and thresholds relative to (III) bone marrow (SUVBM), (IV) parotid gland (SUVparotis) and (V) pituitary gland (SUVsella). RESULTS: 19 meningiomas in 17 PET/CT scans (16 patients) were included. A fixed SUV of 4.0 (r = 0.783, p < 0.001) showed good correlation with CT volumes without skewed distribution on Bland-Altman-Plot analysis. Using isocontour-based thresholds, 45% SUVmax (r = 0.496, p = 0.031) showed the highest concordance. Best reference-based approaches were achieved by 150% SUVBM (r = 0.859, p < 0.001), 250% SUVparotis (r = 0.460, p = 0.047) and 70% SUVsella (r = 0.819, p < 0.001). However, background-based approaches showed a trend towards overestimation of PET-volumes in larger meningiomas as assessed on Bland-Altman-Plot analyses. Uptake intensities of reference tissues (SUVBM, SUVparotis and SUVsella) were not inter-correlated (p > 0.05 each). CONCLUSION: A fixed SUV threshold of 4.0 showed strong agreement with CT-based volumes in well-delineated, extraosseous meningiomas which offers a simple, clinically applicable method without technical requirements. Reference tissue-based methods showed similar correlations but tended to overestimate volumes in larger lesions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kunte et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: