Pilar Herrero1, Terry L Sharp, Carmen Dence, Brendan M Haraden, Robert J Gropler. 1. Cardiovascular Imaging Laboratory, Division of Radiological Sciences, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63110, USA. HerreroP@mir.wustl.edu
Abstract
UNLABELLED: In this study, we compared the accuracy of the rate of myocardial glucose use (rMGU) measured using PET and 1-(11)C-glucose with the rate measured using PET and the more conventional tracer (18)F-FDG. METHODS: PET measurements of myocardial tracer uptake (K, in mL/g/min) and rMGU (in nmol/g/min) were obtained with 1-(11)C-glucose and (18)F-FDG in 21 dogs using kinetic modeling and the Patlak graphical method, respectively. Eighteen dogs were studied during hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp performed either at rest or combined with phenylephrine, dobutamine, intralipid infusion, or intralipid infusion and dobutamine. Three dogs were studied during intralipid infusion alone under resting conditions. Arterial-coronary sinus sampling was performed to measure the K of both tracers (n = 14) and rMGU by the Fick method (n = 21). RESULTS: PET-derived values for K from either 1-(11)C-glucose or (18)F-FDG correlated closely with directly measured tracer K values (glucose: y = 0.98x + 0.01, r = 0.79, P < 0.001; (18)F-FDG: y = 0.74x + 0.03, r = 0.77, P < 0.001). In contrast, correlation with K values of unlabeled glucose measured directly was better for 1-(11)C-glucose (y = 0.92x + 0.02, r = 0.96, P < 0.0001) than for (18)F-FDG (y = 0.66x + 0.05, r = 0.72, P < 0.01) (P < 0.001 for comparison of correlation coefficients). As a consequence, PET-derived values for rMGU correlated more closely with Fick-derived measurements of unlabeled glucose using 1-(11)C-glucose (y = 0.82x + 168, r = 0.97, P < 0.0001) than with (18)F-FDG (y = 0.81x + 278, r = 0.79, P < 0.001) (P < 0.001 for comparison of correlation coefficients). CONCLUSION: Over a wide range of conditions, PET-derived measurements of rMGU are obtained more accurately with 1-(11)C-glucose than with (18)F-FDG.
UNLABELLED: In this study, we compared the accuracy of the rate of myocardial glucose use (rMGU) measured using PET and 1-(11)C-glucose with the rate measured using PET and the more conventional tracer (18)F-FDG. METHODS: PET measurements of myocardial tracer uptake (K, in mL/g/min) and rMGU (in nmol/g/min) were obtained with 1-(11)C-glucose and (18)F-FDG in 21 dogs using kinetic modeling and the Patlak graphical method, respectively. Eighteen dogs were studied during hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp performed either at rest or combined with phenylephrine, dobutamine, intralipid infusion, or intralipid infusion and dobutamine. Three dogs were studied during intralipid infusion alone under resting conditions. Arterial-coronary sinus sampling was performed to measure the K of both tracers (n = 14) and rMGU by the Fick method (n = 21). RESULTS: PET-derived values for K from either 1-(11)C-glucose or (18)F-FDG correlated closely with directly measured tracer K values (glucose: y = 0.98x + 0.01, r = 0.79, P < 0.001; (18)F-FDG: y = 0.74x + 0.03, r = 0.77, P < 0.001). In contrast, correlation with K values of unlabeled glucose measured directly was better for 1-(11)C-glucose (y = 0.92x + 0.02, r = 0.96, P < 0.0001) than for (18)F-FDG (y = 0.66x + 0.05, r = 0.72, P < 0.01) (P < 0.001 for comparison of correlation coefficients). As a consequence, PET-derived values for rMGU correlated more closely with Fick-derived measurements of unlabeled glucose using 1-(11)C-glucose (y = 0.82x + 168, r = 0.97, P < 0.0001) than with (18)F-FDG (y = 0.81x + 278, r = 0.79, P < 0.001) (P < 0.001 for comparison of correlation coefficients). CONCLUSION: Over a wide range of conditions, PET-derived measurements of rMGU are obtained more accurately with 1-(11)C-glucose than with (18)F-FDG.
Authors: Yang Zuo; Ramsey D Badawi; Cameron C Foster; Thomas Smith; Javier E López; Guobao Wang Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2020-10-15
Authors: Matthew R Lyons; Linda R Peterson; Janet B McGill; Pilar Herrero; Andrew R Coggan; Ibrahim M Saeed; Carol Recklein; Kenneth B Schechtman; Robert J Gropler Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Tobias Schroeder; Marcos F Vidal Melo; Guido Musch; R Scott Harris; Jose G Venegas; Tilo Winkler Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Kooresh I Shoghi; Robert J Gropler; Terry Sharp; Pilar Herrero; Nicole Fettig; Yi Su; Mayurranjan S Mitra; Attila Kovacs; Brian N Finck; Michael J Welch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-07-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Erica Silvestri; Valentina Scolozzi; Gaia Rizzo; Luca Indovina; Marco Castellaro; Maria Vittoria Mattoli; Paolo Graziano; Giuseppe Cardillo; Alessandra Bertoldo; Maria Lucia Calcagni Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 3.138