UNLABELLED: The high-resolution research tomograph (HRRT) is a dedicated human brain PET scanner. The purpose of this study was to compare the quantitative accuracy of the HRRT with that of the clinical HR+ PET scanner and to assess effects of differences in spatial resolution between both scanners ( approximately 2.7 mm and approximately 7.0 mm for HRRT and HR+, respectively). METHODS: Paired (11)C-flumazenil scans of 7 healthy volunteers were assessed. For each volunteer, dynamic scans (including arterial sampling) were acquired on both scanners on the same day, thereby minimizing intersubject variability. Volume of distribution was generated using Logan plot analysis with plasma input. In addition, other plasma input, reference tissue (with pons as the reference tissue input), and parametric methods were included in the interscanner comparison. RESULTS: Logan volume-of-distribution analysis of HRRT data showed higher values than that of HR+ data (slope with the intercept fixed at the origin of 1.14 +/- 0.10 to 1.19 +/- 0.10, depending on the HRRT reconstruction method used). Smoothing HRRT reconstructions with a 6-mm full width at half maximum gaussian kernel reduced this slope toward the line of identity (1.04 +/- 0.11 to 1.07 +/- 0.11), retaining good correlation between HR+ and HRRT data (r, approximately 0.98). Similar trends were observed for other plasma input, reference tissue, and parametric methods. However, after reference matching the reference tissue models showed lower HRRT kinetic parameter values than HR+ values (slope with fixed intercept, 0.90 +/- 0.10 to 0.94 +/- 0.13). CONCLUSION: Higher values of pharmacokinetic parameter values, obtained from HRRT versus HR+ PET studies, indicate improved HRRT PET quantification primarily due to a reduction in partial-volume effects.
UNLABELLED: The high-resolution research tomograph (HRRT) is a dedicated human brain PET scanner. The purpose of this study was to compare the quantitative accuracy of the HRRT with that of the clinical HR+ PET scanner and to assess effects of differences in spatial resolution between both scanners ( approximately 2.7 mm and approximately 7.0 mm for HRRT and HR+, respectively). METHODS: Paired (11)C-flumazenil scans of 7 healthy volunteers were assessed. For each volunteer, dynamic scans (including arterial sampling) were acquired on both scanners on the same day, thereby minimizing intersubject variability. Volume of distribution was generated using Logan plot analysis with plasma input. In addition, other plasma input, reference tissue (with pons as the reference tissue input), and parametric methods were included in the interscanner comparison. RESULTS: Logan volume-of-distribution analysis of HRRT data showed higher values than that of HR+ data (slope with the intercept fixed at the origin of 1.14 +/- 0.10 to 1.19 +/- 0.10, depending on the HRRT reconstruction method used). Smoothing HRRT reconstructions with a 6-mm full width at half maximum gaussian kernel reduced this slope toward the line of identity (1.04 +/- 0.11 to 1.07 +/- 0.11), retaining good correlation between HR+ and HRRT data (r, approximately 0.98). Similar trends were observed for other plasma input, reference tissue, and parametric methods. However, after reference matching the reference tissue models showed lower HRRT kinetic parameter values than HR+ values (slope with fixed intercept, 0.90 +/- 0.10 to 0.94 +/- 0.13). CONCLUSION: Higher values of pharmacokinetic parameter values, obtained from HRRT versus HR+ PET studies, indicate improved HRRT PET quantification primarily due to a reduction in partial-volume effects.
Authors: Rajesh Narendran; N Scott Mason; Maureen A May; Chi-Min Chen; Steve Kendro; Khanum Ridler; Eugenii A Rabiner; Marc Laruelle; Chester A Mathis; W Gordon Frankle Journal: Synapse Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.562
Authors: James M Joers; Dinesh K Deelchand; Anjali Kumar; Amir Moheet; Elizabeth Seaquist; Pierre-Gilles Henry; Gülin Öz Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Floris H P van Velden; Syahir M Mansor; Daniëlle M E van Assema; Bart N M van Berckel; Femke E Froklage; Shaonan Wang; Robert C Schuit; Marie-Claude Asselin; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard; Marc C Huisman Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Jurgen E M Mourik; Mark Lubberink; Floris H P van Velden; Reina W Kloet; Bart N M van Berckel; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2009-10-21 Impact factor: 6.200