| Literature DB >> 24335879 |
Anders N Christensen1, Michala H Reichkendler, Rasmus Larsen, Pernille Auerbach, Liselotte Højgaard, Henning B Nielsen, Thorkil Ploug, Bente Stallknecht, Søren Holm.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated the use of a simple calibration method to remove bias in previously proposed approaches to image-derived input functions (IDIFs) when used to calculate the metabolic uptake rate of <span class="Chemical">glucose (K(m)) from dynamic [(18)F]-FDG PET scans of the thigh. Our objective was to obtain nonbiased, low-variance K(m) values without blood sampling.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24335879 PMCID: PMC3940375 DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000063
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nucl Med Commun ISSN: 0143-3636 Impact factor: 1.690
The previously proposed image-derived input function methods and a short recap of how they work
Fig. 1Archetypal analysis component maps constructed by the method of Mørup and Hansen 9. (a) The vascular component where the arteries are clearly visible. (b) The high uptake component, mainly the musculature. The white arrows mark the dark spots where the arteries are. (c) The low uptake component, mainly the fat and the bone marrow.
Fig. 2Manually defined regions in each thigh on the ultralow-dose computed tomography. Regions in the left leg: vastus medialis, purple; vastus lateralis, light blue; the hamstring muscle group, green; the adductor muscle group, pink; the gracilis muscle, yellow.
Fig. 3The method of Croteau et al. 3. Recovery coefficient (RC) and spill-in coeffcient (SP) plotted against the full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) of the artery calculated from the PET images.
Fig. 4Image-derived input function (IDIF) from the EPICA method by Naganawa et al. 15. The tail of the IDIF crosses the time axis and is negative for t>30 min.
Fig. 5Parker and Feng 8 image-derived input function Km values compared with arterial input function Km values.
Regression results for the various methods
Fig. 6Image-derived input function (IDIF) using the Parker and Feng 8 method (circles) compared with the arterial blood samples (fully marked line). The IDIF matches the peak well and overestimates the tail.
SD (min−1) of the different methods, as estimated by cross-validation estimation and .632 estimation
Percentage error of the methods before and after calibration