| Literature DB >> 26807443 |
Kristen A Wangerin1, Mark Muzi2, Lanell M Peterson2, Hannah M Linden3, Alena Novakova3, Finbarr O'Sullivan4, Brenda F Kurland5, David A Mankoff6, Paul E Kinahan7.
Abstract
Prior reports have suggested that delayed FDG-PET oncology imaging can improve the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for known lesions. Our goal was to estimate realistic bounds for lesion detectability for static measurements with one to four hours between FDG injection and image acquisition. Tumor and normal tissue kinetic model parameters were estimated from dynamic PET studies of patients with early stage breast cancer. These were used to generate time-activity curves (TACs) out to four hours, for which we assumed both nonreversible and reversible models with different rates of FDG dephosphorylation (k4). For each pair of tumor and normal tissue TACs, 600 PET sinogram realizations were generated, and images were reconstructed using OSEM. Test statistics for each tumor and normal tissue region of interest were output from the computer model observers and evaluated using an ROC analysis with the calculated AUC providing a measure of lesion detectability. For the nonreversible model (k4 = 0), the AUC increased in 11/23 (48%) of patients for one to two hours after the current standard post-radiotracer injection imaging window of one hour. This improvement was driven by increased tumor/normal tissue contrast before the impact of increased noise due to radiotracer decay began to dominate the imaging signal. As k4 was increased from 0 to 0.01 min-1, the time of maximum detectability shifted earlier, as the decreasing FDG concentration in the tumor lowered the CNR. These results imply that delayed PET imaging may reveal low-conspicuity lesions that would have otherwise gone undetected.Entities:
Keywords: Breast Imaging; Lesion Detectability; PET; Physics; Virtual Clinical Trial
Year: 2015 PMID: 26807443 PMCID: PMC4721230 DOI: 10.18383/j.tom.2015.00151
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tomography ISSN: 2379-1381
Patient Characteristics (n = 23)
| Characteristic | Mean Value | Range |
|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | 61.7 | 51.6-80.0 |
| Weight (kg) | 80.9 | 43.6-141.8 |
| Injected dose (MBq) | 315 | 230-366 |
| Blood glucose (mg/dL) | 101.5 | 82-125 |
| Tumor diameter (cm) | 1.6 | 0.6-3.7 |
| Tumor grade | 1.6 | 1-2 |
| Biopsy ER (Allred score) | 8 | 7-8 |
| Biopsy PgR (Allred score) | 5.9 | 0-8 |
| Ki-67 (% staining) | 19.5 | 5-70 |
Abbreviations: ER, estrogen receptor; PgR, progesterone receptor.
Figure 1.(A) Reconstructed patient image along with measured and modeled decay-corrected TACs for patient 11 with a grade 1, 1-cm-diameter tumor. The acquired dynamic data are shown as data points, and the TACs generated using the parameters estimated with the kinetic model are shown as lines. (B) TAC and model curves for representative patients. Data are plotted based on the middle time point of the time bin.
Figure 2.Two-tissue compartment kinetic model.
Estimated Kinetic Parameters for All Patients for Nonreversible Model (k4 = 0)
| Parameter | Mean ± SD | Range |
|---|---|---|
| 0.009 ± 0.008 | 0.001–0.019 | |
| 0.043 ± 0.023 | 0.005–0.067 | |
| 0.002 ± 0.003 | 0.0001–0.006 |
Simulation Summary
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Number of patients | 23 |
| Kinetic parameters | |
| Biological noise | 10% CV added to |
| PET data noise | Poisson noise added to sinogram |
| Noise realizations | 600 per patient |
| Time points | 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 hours after injection |
| Regions of interest | Tumor and normal tissue |
Abbreviations: CV, coefficient of variation; PET, positron emission tomography.
Figure 3.Synthetic tumor and normal tissue TACs for patient 11 assuming k4 = 0, 0.001, 0.005, and 0.01 min−1.
Figure 4.(A) OSEM-reconstructed images for patient 11 and the nonreversible model (k4 = 0) at 1, 2, and 4 hours after injection; the arrow points to the location of the lesion. (B) Horizontal profiles for 3 noise realizations as well as the mean profile over all realizations. (C) Histograms of normal and tumor tissue SUVs with increasing separation between peaks, with time indicating increasing contrast and a broadening of the distributions indicating increasing noise. (D) Histograms of normal and tumor tissue CHO test statistics—the greater the separation between peaks, the higher the detectability.
Figure 5.(A) AUC as a function of time calculated from CHO ROC curves for patient 11. (B) AUC results for all patients using the nonreversible model, separated by the AUC peaking after 1 hour (left) or at or before 1 hour (right). Each patient is represented as a different line and color. (C) AUC for the reversible model and patients who benefited from delayed imaging when k4 = 0. As k4 increases, the peak AUC, or lesion detectability, shifts earlier.
Figure 6.Comparison of patient 5 and 17 TACs to the resulting CHO AUC curves when k4 = 0. Patient 17 showed the most significant decrease in tumor concentration as well as decrease in AUC as a function of time.