Michael Hofman1, David Binns2, Val Johnston2, Shankar Siva3, Mick Thompson2, Peter Eu2, Marnie Collins4, Rodney J Hicks5. 1. Centre for Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia michael.hofman@petermac.org. 2. Centre for Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; and. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Centre for Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) can accurately be determined using (51)Cr-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) plasma clearance counting but is time-consuming and requires technical skills and equipment not always available in imaging departments. (68)Ga-EDTA can be readily available using an onsite generator, and PET/CT enables both imaging of renal function and accurate camera-based quantitation of clearance of activity from blood and its appearance in the urine. This study aimed to assess agreement between (68)Ga-EDTA GFR ((68)Ga-GFR) and (51)Cr-EDTA GFR ((51)Cr-GFR), using serial plasma sampling and PET imaging. METHODS: (68)Ga-EDTA and (51)Cr-EDTA were injected concurrently in 31 patients. Dynamic PET/CT encompassing the kidneys was acquired for 10 min followed by 3 sequential 3-min multibed step acquisitions from kidneys to bladder. PET quantification was performed using renal activity at 1-2 min (PETinitial), renal excretion at 2-10 min (PETearly), and, subsequently, urinary excretion into the collecting system and bladder (PETlate). Plasma sampling at 2, 3, and 4 h was performed, with (68)Ga followed by (51)Cr counting after positron decay. The level of agreement for GFR determination was calculated using a Bland-Altman plot and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). RESULTS: (51)Cr-GFR ranged from 10 to 220 mL/min (mean, 85 mL/min). There was good agreement between (68)Ga-GFR and (51)Cr-GFR using serial plasma sampling, with a Bland-Altman bias of -14 ± 20 mL/min and a PCC of 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.97). Of the 3 methods used for camera-based quantification, the strongest correlation was for plasma sampling-derived GFR with PETlate (PCC of 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.95). CONCLUSION: (68)Ga-GFR agreed well with (51)Cr-GFR for estimation of GFR using serial plasma counting. PET dynamic imaging provides a method to estimate GFR without plasma sampling, with the additional advantage of enabling renal imaging in a single study. Additional validation in a larger cohort is warranted to further assess utility.
UNLABELLED: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) can accurately be determined using (51)Cr-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) plasma clearance counting but is time-consuming and requires technical skills and equipment not always available in imaging departments. (68)Ga-EDTA can be readily available using an onsite generator, and PET/CT enables both imaging of renal function and accurate camera-based quantitation of clearance of activity from blood and its appearance in the urine. This study aimed to assess agreement between (68)Ga-EDTA GFR ((68)Ga-GFR) and (51)Cr-EDTA GFR ((51)Cr-GFR), using serial plasma sampling and PET imaging. METHODS: (68)Ga-EDTA and (51)Cr-EDTA were injected concurrently in 31 patients. Dynamic PET/CT encompassing the kidneys was acquired for 10 min followed by 3 sequential 3-min multibed step acquisitions from kidneys to bladder. PET quantification was performed using renal activity at 1-2 min (PETinitial), renal excretion at 2-10 min (PETearly), and, subsequently, urinary excretion into the collecting system and bladder (PETlate). Plasma sampling at 2, 3, and 4 h was performed, with (68)Ga followed by (51)Cr counting after positron decay. The level of agreement for GFR determination was calculated using a Bland-Altman plot and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). RESULTS: (51)Cr-GFR ranged from 10 to 220 mL/min (mean, 85 mL/min). There was good agreement between (68)Ga-GFR and (51)Cr-GFR using serial plasma sampling, with a Bland-Altman bias of -14 ± 20 mL/min and a PCC of 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.97). Of the 3 methods used for camera-based quantification, the strongest correlation was for plasma sampling-derived GFR with PETlate (PCC of 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.95). CONCLUSION: (68)Ga-GFR agreed well with (51)Cr-GFR for estimation of GFR using serial plasma counting. PET dynamic imaging provides a method to estimate GFR without plasma sampling, with the additional advantage of enabling renal imaging in a single study. Additional validation in a larger cohort is warranted to further assess utility.
Authors: Dawei Jiang; Hyung-Jun Im; Madeline E Boleyn; Christopher G England; Dalong Ni; Lei Kang; Jonathan W Engle; Peng Huang; Xiaoli Lan; Weibo Cai Journal: Nano Res Date: 2018-12-28 Impact factor: 8.897
Authors: Andrea O Fontana; Mary Gonzalez Melo; Gilles Allenbach; Costa Georgantas; Ruijia Wang; Olivier Braissant; Frederic Barbey; John O Prior; Diana Ballhausen; David Viertl Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-12-15
Authors: Ying Ding; Du Zhang; Min Wang; Li Zhang; Yu Liu; Yinqian Deng; Dawei Jiang; Yuqing Liu; Wei Cao Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-04-15
Authors: Dalong Ni; Dawei Jiang; Christopher J Kutyreff; Jianhao Lai; Yongjun Yan; Todd E Barnhart; Bo Yu; Hyung-Jun Im; Lei Kang; Steve Y Cho; Zhaofei Liu; Peng Huang; Jonathan W Engle; Weibo Cai Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Xinyu Chen; Constantin Lapa; Kazuhiro Koshino; Steven P Rowe; Martin G Pomper; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: David Kersting; Miriam Sraieb; Robert Seifert; Pedro Fragoso Costa; Sandra Kazek; Lukas Kessler; Lale Umutlu; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Walter Jentzen; Ken Herrmann; Florian Büther; Michael Nader; Christoph Rischpler Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: David Kersting; Miriam Sraieb; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Florian Büther; Christoph Rischpler Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-07-09 Impact factor: 10.057