PURPOSE: The human arterial wall is smaller than the spatial resolution of current positron emission tomographs. Therefore, partial volume effects should be considered when quantifying arterial wall (18)F-FDG uptake. We evaluated the impact of a novel method for partial volume effect (PVE) correction with contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) assistance on quantification of arterial wall (18)F-FDG uptake at different imaging time-points. METHODS: Ten subjects were assessed by CECT imaging and dual time-point PET/CT imaging at approximately 60 and 180 min after (18)F-FDG administration. For both time-points, uptake of (18)F-FDG was determined in the aortic wall by calculating the blood pool-corrected maximum standardized uptake value (cSUVMAX) and cSUVMEAN. The PVE-corrected SUVMEAN (pvcSUVMEAN) was also calculated using (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CECT images. Finally, corresponding target-to-background ratios (TBR) were calculated. RESULTS: At 60 min, pvcSUVMEAN was on average 3.1 times greater than cSUVMAX (P < .0001) and 8.5 times greater than cSUVMEAN (P < .0001). At 180 min, pvcSUVMEAN was on average 2.6 times greater than cSUVMAX (P < .0001) and 6.6 times greater than cSUVMEAN (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that CECT-assisted PVE correction significantly influences quantification of arterial wall (18)F-FDG uptake. Therefore, partial volume effects should be considered when quantifying arterial wall (18)F-FDG uptake with PET.
PURPOSE: The human arterial wall is smaller than the spatial resolution of current positron emission tomographs. Therefore, partial volume effects should be considered when quantifying arterial wall (18)F-FDG uptake. We evaluated the impact of a novel method for partial volume effect (PVE) correction with contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) assistance on quantification of arterial wall (18)F-FDG uptake at different imaging time-points. METHODS: Ten subjects were assessed by CECT imaging and dual time-point PET/CT imaging at approximately 60 and 180 min after (18)F-FDG administration. For both time-points, uptake of (18)F-FDG was determined in the aortic wall by calculating the blood pool-corrected maximum standardized uptake value (cSUVMAX) and cSUVMEAN. The PVE-corrected SUVMEAN (pvcSUVMEAN) was also calculated using (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CECT images. Finally, corresponding target-to-background ratios (TBR) were calculated. RESULTS: At 60 min, pvcSUVMEAN was on average 3.1 times greater than cSUVMAX (P < .0001) and 8.5 times greater than cSUVMEAN (P < .0001). At 180 min, pvcSUVMEAN was on average 2.6 times greater than cSUVMAX (P < .0001) and 6.6 times greater than cSUVMEAN (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that CECT-assisted PVE correction significantly influences quantification of arterial wall (18)F-FDG uptake. Therefore, partial volume effects should be considered when quantifying arterial wall (18)F-FDG uptake with PET.
Authors: Christian Reeps; Ralph A Bundschuh; Jaroslav Pellisek; Michael Herz; Sandra van Marwick; Markus Schwaiger; Hans-Henning Eckstein; Stephan G Nekolla; Markus Essler Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-07-07 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Eduardo J Folco; Yuri Sheikine; Viviane Z Rocha; Thomas Christen; Eugenia Shvartz; Galina K Sukhova; Marcelo F Di Carli; Peter Libby Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-08-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David Izquierdo-Garcia; John R Davies; Martin J Graves; James H F Rudd; Jonathan H Gillard; Peter L Weissberg; Tim D Fryer; Elizabeth A Warburton Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Axel Rominger; Tobias Saam; Sarah Wolpers; Clemens C Cyran; Michael Schmidt; Stefan Foerster; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Peter Bartenstein; Marcus Hacker Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J H F Rudd; E A Warburton; T D Fryer; H A Jones; J C Clark; N Antoun; P Johnström; A P Davenport; P J Kirkpatrick; B N Arch; J D Pickard; P L Weissberg Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-06-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Elena Incerti; Enrico Tombetti; Federico Fallanca; Elena M Baldissera; Pierpaolo Alongi; Elisabetta Tombolini; Silvia Sartorelli; Maria Grazia Sabbadini; Maurizio Papa; Francesco De Cobelli; Justin C Mason; Luigi Gianolli; Angelo A Manfredi; Maria Picchio Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Joel S Rosenblum; Kaitlin A Quinn; Casey A Rimland; Nehal N Mehta; Mark A Ahlman; Peter C Grayson Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Evangelos Tzolos; Jacek Kwiecinski; Martin Lyngby Lassen; Sebastien Cadet; Philip D Adamson; Alastair J Moss; Nikhil Joshi; Michelle C Williams; Edwin J R van Beek; Damini Dey; Daniel S Berman; Marc R Dweck; David E Newby; Piotr J Slomka Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Michael Mayer; Austin J Borja; Emily C Hancin; Thomas Auslander; Mona-Elisabeth Revheim; Mateen C Moghbel; Thomas J Werner; Abass Alavi; Chamith S Rajapakse Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Riemer H J A Slart; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Olivier Gheysens; Mark Lubberink; Tanja Kero; Marc R Dweck; Gilbert Habib; Oliver Gaemperli; Antti Saraste; Alessia Gimelli; Panagiotis Georgoulias; Hein J Verberne; Jan Bucerius; Christoph Rischpler; Fabien Hyafil; Paola A Erba Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 9.236