PURPOSE: Parametric analysis of (15)O-water positron emission tomography (PET) studies allows determination of blood flow (BF), perfusable tissue fraction (PTF), and volume of distribution (V (d)) with high spatial resolution. In this paper the performance of basis function and linear least squares methods for generating parametric flow data were evaluated. PROCEDURES: Monte Carlo simulations were performed using typical perfusion values for brain, tumor, and heart. Clinical evaluation was performed using seven cerebral and 10 myocardial (15)O-water PET studies. Basis function (BFM), linear least squares (LLS), and generalized linear least squares (GLLS) methods were used to calculate BF, PTF, or V(d). RESULTS: Monte Carlo simulations and human studies showed that, for low BF values (<1 ml/min(-1)ml(-1), BF, PTF, and V(d) were calculated with accuracies better than 5% for all methods tested. For high BF (>2 ml/min(-1)ml(-1)), use of BFM provided more accurate V(d) compared with (G)LLS. CONCLUSIONS: In general, BFM provided the most accurate estimates of BF, PTF, and V(d).
PURPOSE: Parametric analysis of (15)O-water positron emission tomography (PET) studies allows determination of blood flow (BF), perfusable tissue fraction (PTF), and volume of distribution (V (d)) with high spatial resolution. In this paper the performance of basis function and linear least squares methods for generating parametric flow data were evaluated. PROCEDURES: Monte Carlo simulations were performed using typical perfusion values for brain, tumor, and heart. Clinical evaluation was performed using seven cerebral and 10 myocardial (15)O-water PET studies. Basis function (BFM), linear least squares (LLS), and generalized linear least squares (GLLS) methods were used to calculate BF, PTF, or V(d). RESULTS: Monte Carlo simulations and human studies showed that, for low BF values (<1 ml/min(-1)ml(-1), BF, PTF, and V(d) were calculated with accuracies better than 5% for all methods tested. For high BF (>2 ml/min(-1)ml(-1)), use of BFM provided more accurate V(d) compared with (G)LLS. CONCLUSIONS: In general, BFM provided the most accurate estimates of BF, PTF, and V(d).
Authors: N M Alpert; D A Chesler; J A Correia; R H Ackerman; J Y Chang; S Finklestein; S M Davis; G L Brownell; J M Taveras Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 1982 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Corneline J Hoekstra; Sigrid G Stroobants; Otto S Hoekstra; Egbert F Smit; Johan F Vansteenkiste; Adriaan A Lammertsma Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Hendrik J Harms; Paul Knaapen; Stefan de Haan; Rick Halbmeijer; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Mark Lubberink Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Stefan de Haan; Mischa T Rijnierse; Hendrik J Harms; Hein J Verberne; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Marc C Huisman; Albert D Windhorst; Albert C van Rossum; Cornelis P Allaart; Paul Knaapen Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Jurgen E M Mourik; Mark Lubberink; Alie Schuitemaker; Nelleke Tolboom; Bart N M van Berckel; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-11-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sophie Schmid; Dennis F R Heijtel; Henri J M M Mutsaerts; Ronald Boellaard; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Aart J Nederveen; Matthias J P van Osch Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Paul Knaapen; Paolo G Camici; Koen M Marques; Robin Nijveldt; Jeroen J Bax; Nico Westerhof; Marco J W Götte; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Heinrich R Schelbert; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Albert C van Rossum Journal: Basic Res Cardiol Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 17.165