Karmen K Yoder1, Paul R Territo2, Gary D Hutchins3, Jonas Hannestad4, Evan D Morris4, Jean-Dominique Gallezot4, Marc D Normandin5, Kelly P Cosgrove4. 1. Radiology & Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis IN; Center for Neuroimaging, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis IN; Stark Neurosciences Research Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN. Electronic address: kkyoder@iupui.edu. 2. Radiology & Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis IN. 3. Radiology & Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis IN; Center for Neuroimaging, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis IN. 4. Yale PET Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven CT. 5. Center for Advanced Medical Imaging Sciences, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston MA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: [(11)C]PBR28 is a high-affinity ligand for the Translocator Protein 18 kDa (TSPO), which is considered to be a marker for microglial activation. Volume of distribution (VT) estimated with an arterial plasma input function is the gold standard for quantitation of [(11)C]PBR28 binding. However, arterial sampling is impractical at many PET sites for multiple reasons. Reference region modeling approaches are not ideal for TSPO tracers, as the existence of a true reference region cannot be assumed. Given that it would be desirable to have a non-invasive index of [(11)C]PBR28 binding, we elected to study the utility of the semi-quantitative metric, standardized uptake value (SUV) for use in brain [(11)C]PBR PET studies. The primary goal of this study was to determine the relationship between SUV and VT. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from sixteen [(11)C]PBR28 PET scans acquired in baboons at baseline and at multiple time points after IV injection of lipopolysaccharide, an endotoxin that transiently induces neuroinflammation. For each scan, data from 14 brain regions of interest were studied. VT was estimated with the Logan plot, using metabolite-corrected input functions. SUV was calculated with data from 30 to 60 minutes after [(11)C]PBR28 injection. RESULTS: Within individual PET studies, SUV tended to correlate well with VT. Across studies, the relationship between SUV and VT was variable. CONCLUSIONS: From study to study, there was variability in the degree of correlation between [(11)C]PBR28 VT and SUV. There are multiple physiological factors that may contribute to this variance. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: As currently applied, the non-invasive measurement of SUV does not appear to be a reliable outcome variable for [(11)C]PBR28. Additional work is needed to discover the source of the discrepancy in SUV between [(11)C]PBR28 scans. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: There is a need to develop alternatives to arterial plasma input functions for TSPO ligands in order to facilitate multi-center trials.
INTRODUCTION: [(11)C]PBR28 is a high-affinity ligand for the Translocator Protein 18 kDa (TSPO), which is considered to be a marker for microglial activation. Volume of distribution (VT) estimated with an arterial plasma input function is the gold standard for quantitation of [(11)C]PBR28 binding. However, arterial sampling is impractical at many PET sites for multiple reasons. Reference region modeling approaches are not ideal for TSPO tracers, as the existence of a true reference region cannot be assumed. Given that it would be desirable to have a non-invasive index of [(11)C]PBR28 binding, we elected to study the utility of the semi-quantitative metric, standardized uptake value (SUV) for use in brain [(11)C]PBR PET studies. The primary goal of this study was to determine the relationship between SUV and VT. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from sixteen [(11)C]PBR28 PET scans acquired in baboons at baseline and at multiple time points after IV injection of lipopolysaccharide, an endotoxin that transiently induces neuroinflammation. For each scan, data from 14 brain regions of interest were studied. VT was estimated with the Logan plot, using metabolite-corrected input functions. SUV was calculated with data from 30 to 60 minutes after [(11)C]PBR28 injection. RESULTS: Within individual PET studies, SUV tended to correlate well with VT. Across studies, the relationship between SUV and VT was variable. CONCLUSIONS: From study to study, there was variability in the degree of correlation between [(11)C]PBR28 VT and SUV. There are multiple physiological factors that may contribute to this variance. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: As currently applied, the non-invasive measurement of SUV does not appear to be a reliable outcome variable for [(11)C]PBR28. Additional work is needed to discover the source of the discrepancy in SUV between [(11)C]PBR28 scans. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: There is a need to develop alternatives to arterial plasma input functions for TSPO ligands in order to facilitate multi-center trials.
Authors: Jonas Hannestad; Jean-Dominique Gallezot; Thomas Schafbauer; Keunpoong Lim; Tracy Kloczynski; Evan D Morris; Richard E Carson; Yu-Shin Ding; Kelly P Cosgrove Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Vassilios Papadopoulos; Mario Baraldi; Tomás R Guilarte; Thomas B Knudsen; Jean-Jacques Lacapère; Peter Lindemann; Michael D Norenberg; David Nutt; Abraham Weizman; Ming-Rong Zhang; Moshe Gavish Journal: Trends Pharmacol Sci Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 14.819
Authors: Christina S Hines; Masahiro Fujita; Sami S Zoghbi; Jin Su Kim; Zenaide Quezado; Peter Herscovitch; Ning Miao; Maria D Ferraris Araneta; Cheryl Morse; Victor W Pike; Julia Labovsky; Robert B Innis Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jonas Hannestad; Nicole DellaGioia; Jean-Dominique Gallezot; Keunpoong Lim; Nabeel Nabulsi; Irina Esterlis; Brian Pittman; Jae-Yun Lee; Kevin C O'Connor; Daniel Pelletier; Richard E Carson Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Masao Imaizumi; Hyun-Ju Kim; Sami S Zoghbi; Emmanuelle Briard; Jinsoo Hong; John L Musachio; Christl Ruetzler; De-Maw Chuang; Victor W Pike; Robert B Innis; Masahiro Fujita Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 2006-11-28 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: William C Kreisl; Chul Hyoung Lyoo; Meghan McGwier; Joseph Snow; Kimberly J Jenko; Nobuyo Kimura; Winston Corona; Cheryl L Morse; Sami S Zoghbi; Victor W Pike; Francis J McMahon; R Scott Turner; Robert B Innis Journal: Brain Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Karmen K Yoder; Kwangsik Nho; Shannon L Risacher; Sungeun Kim; Li Shen; Andrew J Saykin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Arthur L Brody; Robert Hubert; Ryutaro Enoki; Lizette Y Garcia; Michael S Mamoun; Kyoji Okita; Edythe D London; Erika L Nurmi; Lauren C Seaman; Mark A Mandelkern Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Daniel S Albrecht; Marc D Normandin; Sergey Shcherbinin; Dustin W Wooten; Adam J Schwarz; Nicole R Zürcher; Vanessa N Barth; Nicolas J Guehl; Oluwaseun Akeju; Nazem Atassi; Mattia Veronese; Federico Turkheimer; Jacob M Hooker; Marco L Loggia Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nafiseh Ghazanfari; Aren van Waarde; Janine Doorduin; Jürgen W A Sijbesma; Maria Kominia; Martin Koelewijn; Khaled Attia; David Vállez-García; Antoon T M Willemsen; André Heeres; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Ton J Visser; Erik F J de Vries; Philip H Elsinga Journal: Mol Pharm Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Granville J Matheson; Pontus Plavén-Sigray; Anton Forsberg; Andrea Varrone; Lars Farde; Simon Cervenka Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Yuta Katsumi; Annie M Racine; Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Marco L Loggia; Jacob M Hooker; Douglas N Greve; Baileigh G Hightower; Ciprian Catana; Michele Cavallari; Steven E Arnold; Tamara G Fong; Sarinnapha M Vasunilashorn; Edward R Marcantonio; Eva M Schmitt; Guoquan Xu; Towia A Libermann; Lisa Feldman Barrett; Sharon K Inouye; Bradford C Dickerson; Alexandra Touroutoglou; Jessica A Collins Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Christin Y Sander; Stefano Bovo; Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Daniel Albrecht; Hongping Deng; Vitaly Napadow; Julie C Price; Jacob M Hooker; Marco L Loggia Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 6.960