PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of scanning multiple mice simultaneously on image quantitation, relative to single mouse scans on both a micro-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (microPET/CT) scanner (which utilizes CT-based attenuation correction to the PET reconstruction) and a dedicated microPET scanner using an inexpensive mouse holder "hotel." METHODS: We developed a simple mouse holder made from common laboratory items that allows scanning multiple mice simultaneously. It is also compatible with different imaging modalities to allow multiple mice and multi-modality imaging. For this study, we used a radiotracer ((64)Cu-GB170) with a relatively long half-life (12.7 h), selected to allow scanning at times after tracer uptake reaches steady state. This also reduces the effect of decay between sequential imaging studies, although the standard decay corrections were performed. The imaging was also performed using a common tracer, 2-deoxy-2-[(18) F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG), although the faster decay and faster pharmacokinetics of FDG may introduce greater biological variations due to differences in injection-to-scan timing. We first scanned cylindrical mouse phantoms (50 ml tubes) both in a groups of four at a time (multiple mice mode) and then individually (single mouse mode), using microPET/CT and microPET scanners to validate the process. Then, we imaged a first set of four mice with subcutaneous tumors (C2C12Ras) in both single- and multiple-mice imaging modes. Later, a second set of four normal mice were injected with FDG and scanned 1 h post-injection. Immediately after completion of the scans, ex vivo biodistribution studies were performed on all animals to provide a "gold-standard" to compare quantitative values obtained from PET. A semi-automatic threshold-based region of interest tool was used to minimize operator variability during image analysis. RESULTS: Phantom studies showed less than 4.5 % relative error difference between the single- and multiple-mice imaging modes of PET imaging with CT-based attenuation correction and 18.4 % without CT-based attenuation correction. In vivo animal studies (n = 4) showed <5 % (for (64)Cu, p > 0.686) and <15 % (for FDG, p > 0.4 except for brain image data p = 0.029) relative mean difference with respect to percent injected dose per gram (%ID/gram) between the single- and multiple-mice microPET imaging mode when CT-based attenuation correction is performed. Without CT-based attenuation correction, we observed relative mean differences of about 11 % for (64)Cu and 15 % for FDG. CONCLUSION: Our results confirmed the potential use of a microPET/CT scanner for multiple mice simultaneous imaging without significant sacrifice in quantitative accuracy as well as in image quality. Thus, the use of the mouse "hotel" is an aid to increasing instrument throughput on small animal scanners with minimal loss of quantitative accuracy.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of scanning multiple mice simultaneously on image quantitation, relative to single mouse scans on both a micro-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (microPET/CT) scanner (which utilizes CT-based attenuation correction to the PET reconstruction) and a dedicated microPET scanner using an inexpensive mouse holder "hotel." METHODS: We developed a simple mouse holder made from common laboratory items that allows scanning multiple mice simultaneously. It is also compatible with different imaging modalities to allow multiple mice and multi-modality imaging. For this study, we used a radiotracer ((64)Cu-GB170) with a relatively long half-life (12.7 h), selected to allow scanning at times after tracer uptake reaches steady state. This also reduces the effect of decay between sequential imaging studies, although the standard decay corrections were performed. The imaging was also performed using a common tracer, 2-deoxy-2-[(18) F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG), although the faster decay and faster pharmacokinetics of FDG may introduce greater biological variations due to differences in injection-to-scan timing. We first scanned cylindrical mouse phantoms (50 ml tubes) both in a groups of four at a time (multiple mice mode) and then individually (single mouse mode), using microPET/CT and microPET scanners to validate the process. Then, we imaged a first set of four mice with subcutaneous tumors (C2C12Ras) in both single- and multiple-mice imaging modes. Later, a second set of four normal mice were injected with FDG and scanned 1 h post-injection. Immediately after completion of the scans, ex vivo biodistribution studies were performed on all animals to provide a "gold-standard" to compare quantitative values obtained from PET. A semi-automatic threshold-based region of interest tool was used to minimize operator variability during image analysis. RESULTS: Phantom studies showed less than 4.5 % relative error difference between the single- and multiple-mice imaging modes of PET imaging with CT-based attenuation correction and 18.4 % without CT-based attenuation correction. In vivo animal studies (n = 4) showed <5 % (for (64)Cu, p > 0.686) and <15 % (for FDG, p > 0.4 except for brain image data p = 0.029) relative mean difference with respect to percent injected dose per gram (%ID/gram) between the single- and multiple-mice microPET imaging mode when CT-based attenuation correction is performed. Without CT-based attenuation correction, we observed relative mean differences of about 11 % for (64)Cu and 15 % for FDG. CONCLUSION: Our results confirmed the potential use of a microPET/CT scanner for multiple mice simultaneous imaging without significant sacrifice in quantitative accuracy as well as in image quality. Thus, the use of the mouse "hotel" is an aid to increasing instrument throughput on small animal scanners with minimal loss of quantitative accuracy.
Authors: Anne-Laure Puaux; Lai Chun Ong; Yi Jin; Irvin Teh; Michelle Hong; Pierce K H Chow; Xavier Golay; Jean-Pierre Abastado Journal: Int J Mol Imaging Date: 2011-11-10
Authors: Jing Yong; Julia Rasooly; Hoa Dang; Yuxin Lu; Blake Middleton; Zesong Zhang; Larry Hon; Mohammad Namavari; David B Stout; Mark A Atkinson; Jide Tian; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir; Daniel L Kaufman Journal: Diabetes Date: 2011-03-25 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Gang Ren; Galia Blum; Martijn Verdoes; Hongguang Liu; Salahuddin Syed; Laura E Edgington; Olivier Gheysens; Zheng Miao; Han Jiang; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir; Matthew Bogyo; Zhen Cheng Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: L S Pike; B A Tannous; N C Deliolanis; G Hsich; D Morse; C-H Tung; M Sena-Esteves; X O Breakefield Journal: Gene Ther Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Frederick M Lartey; G-One Ahn; Rehan Ali; Sahar Rosenblum; Zheng Miao; Natasha Arksey; Bin Shen; Marta Vilalta Colomer; Marjan Rafat; Hongguang Liu; Miguel A Alejandre-Alcazar; John W Chen; Theo Palmer; Frederick T Chin; Raphael Guzman; Billy W Loo; Edward Graves Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Jurgen Seidel; Marcelino L Bernardo; Karen J Wong; Biying Xu; Mark R Williams; Frank Kuo; Elaine M Jagoda; Falguni Basuli; Changhui Li; Gary L Griffiths; Michael V Green; Peter L Choyke Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2014-03-29 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: David A Atashroo; Kevin J Paik; Michael T Chung; Adrian McArdle; Kshemendra Senarath-Yapa; Elizabeth R Zielins; Ruth Tevlin; Christopher R Duldulao; Graham G Walmsley; Taylor Wearda; Owen Marecic; Michael T Longaker; Derrick C Wan Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Mikael Palner; Corinne Beinat; Sam Banister; Francesca Zanderigo; Jun Hyung Park; Bin Shen; Trine Hjoernevik; Jae Ho Jung; Byung Chul Lee; Sang Eun Kim; Lawrence Fung; Frederick T Chin Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Marcello Panagia; Jing Yang; Eric Gale; Huan Wang; Ivan Luptak; Howard H Chen; Dakshesh Patel; Dominique Croteau; David Richard Pimentel; Markus Michael Bachschmid; Wilson S Colucci; Chongzhao Ran; David E Sosnovik Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 4.379