UNLABELLED: The use of dynamic (18)F-FDG PET to determine changes in tumor metabolism requires tumor and plasma time-activity curves. Because arterial sampling is invasive and laborious, our aim was to validate noninvasive image-derived input functions (IDIFs). METHODS: We obtained 136 dynamic (18)F-FDG PET scans of 76 oncologic patients. IDIFs were determined using volumes of interest over the left ventricle, ascending aorta, and abdominal aorta. The tumor metabolic rate of glucose (MRGlu) was determined with the Patlak analysis, using arterial plasma time-activity curves and IDIFs. RESULTS: MRGlu using all 3 IDIFs showed a high correlation with MRGlu based on arterial sampling. Comparability between the measures was also high, with the intraclass correlation coefficient being 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.97-0.99) for the ascending aorta IDIF, 0.94 (0.92-0.96) for the left ventricle IDIF, and 0.96 (0.93-0.98) for the abdominal aorta IDIF. CONCLUSION: The use of IDIFs is accurate and simple and represents a clinically viable alternative to arterial blood sampling.
UNLABELLED: The use of dynamic (18)F-FDG PET to determine changes in tumor metabolism requires tumor and plasma time-activity curves. Because arterial sampling is invasive and laborious, our aim was to validate noninvasive image-derived input functions (IDIFs). METHODS: We obtained 136 dynamic (18)F-FDG PET scans of 76 oncologic patients. IDIFs were determined using volumes of interest over the left ventricle, ascending aorta, and abdominal aorta. The tumor metabolic rate of glucose (MRGlu) was determined with the Patlak analysis, using arterial plasma time-activity curves and IDIFs. RESULTS:MRGlu using all 3 IDIFs showed a high correlation with MRGlu based on arterial sampling. Comparability between the measures was also high, with the intraclass correlation coefficient being 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.97-0.99) for the ascending aorta IDIF, 0.94 (0.92-0.96) for the left ventricle IDIF, and 0.96 (0.93-0.98) for the abdominal aorta IDIF. CONCLUSION: The use of IDIFs is accurate and simple and represents a clinically viable alternative to arterial blood sampling.
Authors: Tobias Schroeder; Marcos F Vidal Melo; Guido Musch; R Scott Harris; Jose G Venegas; Tilo Winkler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-10-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Arman Rahmim; Martin A Lodge; Nicolas A Karakatsanis; Vladimir Y Panin; Yun Zhou; Alan McMillan; Steve Cho; Habib Zaidi; Michael E Casey; Richard L Wahl Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Etienne Croteau; Eric Lavallée; Sébastien M Labbe; Laurent Hubert; Fabien Pifferi; Jacques A Rousseau; Stephen C Cunnane; André C Carpentier; Roger Lecomte; François Bénard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-05-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Anouk van Berkel; Dennis Vriens; Eric P Visser; Marcel J R Janssen; Martin Gotthardt; Ad R M M Hermus; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Henri J L M Timmers Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Youngho Seo; Boon-Keng Teo; Mohiuddin Hadi; Carole Schreck; Stephen L Bacharach; Bruce H Hasegawa Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Hasan Sari; Kjell Erlandsson; Ian Law; Henrik Bw Larsson; Sebastien Ourselin; Simon Arridge; David Atkinson; Brian F Hutton Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: F O'Sullivan; J Kirrane; M Muzi; J N O'Sullivan; A M Spence; D A Mankoff; K A Krohn Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2009-08-25 Impact factor: 10.048