PURPOSE: Quantitative neuroreceptor positron emission tomography (PET) studies often require arterial cannulation to measure input function. While population-based input function (PBIF) would be a less invasive alternative, it has only rarely been used in conjunction with neuroreceptor PET tracers. The aims of this study were (1) to validate the use of PBIF for 2-(18)F-fluoro-A-85380, a tracer for nicotinic receptors; (2) to compare the accuracy of measures obtained via PBIF to those obtained via blood-scaled image-derived input function (IDIF) from carotid arteries; and (3) to explore the possibility of using venous instead of arterial samples for both PBIF and IDIF. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers underwent a dynamic 2-(18)F-fluoro-A-85380 brain PET scan with arterial and, in seven subjects, concurrent venous serial blood sampling. PBIF was obtained by averaging the normalized metabolite-corrected arterial input function and subsequently scaling each curve with individual blood samples. IDIF was obtained from the carotid arteries using a blood-scaling method. Estimated Logan distribution volume (V(T)) values were compared to the reference values obtained from arterial cannulation. RESULTS: For all subjects, PBIF curves scaled with arterial samples were similar in shape and magnitude to the reference arterial input function. The Logan V(T) ratio was 1.00 ± 0.05; all subjects had an estimation error <10%. IDIF gave slightly less accurate results (V(T) ratio 1.03 ± 0.07; eight of ten subjects had an error <10%). PBIF scaled with venous samples yielded inaccurate results (V(T) ratio 1.13 ± 0.13; only three of seven subjects had an error <10%). Due to arteriovenous differences at early time points, IDIF could not be calculated using venous samples. CONCLUSION: PBIF scaled with arterial samples accurately estimates Logan V(T) for 2-(18)F-fluoro-A-85380. Results obtained with PBIF were slightly better than those obtained with IDIF. Due to arteriovenous concentration differences, venous samples cannot be substituted for arterial samples.
PURPOSE: Quantitative neuroreceptor positron emission tomography (PET) studies often require arterial cannulation to measure input function. While population-based input function (PBIF) would be a less invasive alternative, it has only rarely been used in conjunction with neuroreceptor PET tracers. The aims of this study were (1) to validate the use of PBIF for 2-(18)F-fluoro-A-85380, a tracer for nicotinic receptors; (2) to compare the accuracy of measures obtained via PBIF to those obtained via blood-scaled image-derived input function (IDIF) from carotid arteries; and (3) to explore the possibility of using venous instead of arterial samples for both PBIF and IDIF. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers underwent a dynamic 2-(18)F-fluoro-A-85380 brain PET scan with arterial and, in seven subjects, concurrent venous serial blood sampling. PBIF was obtained by averaging the normalized metabolite-corrected arterial input function and subsequently scaling each curve with individual blood samples. IDIF was obtained from the carotid arteries using a blood-scaling method. Estimated Logan distribution volume (V(T)) values were compared to the reference values obtained from arterial cannulation. RESULTS: For all subjects, PBIF curves scaled with arterial samples were similar in shape and magnitude to the reference arterial input function. The Logan V(T) ratio was 1.00 ± 0.05; all subjects had an estimation error <10%. IDIF gave slightly less accurate results (V(T) ratio 1.03 ± 0.07; eight of ten subjects had an error <10%). PBIF scaled with venous samples yielded inaccurate results (V(T) ratio 1.13 ± 0.13; only three of seven subjects had an error <10%). Due to arteriovenous differences at early time points, IDIF could not be calculated using venous samples. CONCLUSION:PBIF scaled with arterial samples accurately estimates Logan V(T) for 2-(18)F-fluoro-A-85380. Results obtained with PBIF were slightly better than those obtained with IDIF. Due to arteriovenous concentration differences, venous samples cannot be substituted for arterial samples.
Authors: Sascha Mitkovski; Victor L Villemagne; Kathy E Novakovic; Graeme O'Keefe; Henri Tochon-Danguy; Rachel S Mulligan; Kerryn L Dickinson; Tim Saunder; Marie-Claude Gregoire; Michel Bottlaender; Frederic Dolle; Christopher C Rowe Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: S Takikawa; V Dhawan; P Spetsieris; W Robeson; T Chaly; R Dahl; D Margouleff; D Eidelberg Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Paolo Zanotti-Fregonara; Jeih-San Liow; Masahiro Fujita; Elodie Dusch; Sami S Zoghbi; Elise Luong; Ronald Boellaard; Victor W Pike; Claude Comtat; Robert B Innis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-02-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Paolo Zanotti-Fregonara; Christina S Hines; Sami S Zoghbi; Jeih-San Liow; Yi Zhang; Victor W Pike; Wayne C Drevets; Alan G Mallinger; Carlos A Zarate; Masahiro Fujita; Robert B Innis Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Ralph Buchert; Meike Dirks; Christian Schütze; Florian Wilke; Martin Mamach; Ann-Katrin Wirries; Henning Pflugrad; Linda Hamann; Laura B N Langer; Christian Wetzel; Mario Lukacevic; Andras Polyak; Mariella Kessler; Carlotta Petrusch; Frank M Bengel; Lilli Geworski; Rainer Rupprecht; Karin Weissenborn; Tobias L Ross; Georg Berding Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Paolo Zanotti-Fregonara; Jussi Hirvonen; Chul Hyoung Lyoo; Sami S Zoghbi; Denise Rallis-Frutos; Marilyn A Huestis; Cheryl Morse; Victor W Pike; Robert B Innis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Xuan He; Franziska Wedekind; Tina Kroll; Angela Oskamp; Simone Beer; Alexander Drzezga; Johannes Ermert; Bernd Neumaier; Andreas Bauer; David Elmenhorst Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 4.566