Ida Sonni1, Patrik Fazio2, Martin Schain2, Christer Halldin2, Per Svenningsson3, Lars Farde4, Andrea Varrone2. 1. Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Stockholm, Sweden Sapienza University of Rome, Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and of Translational Medicine, Nuclear Medicine Unit, Rome, Italy idasonni@gmail.com. 2. Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Centre for Molecular Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden; and. 4. Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Stockholm, Sweden AstraZeneca Translational Science Centre at Karolinska Institutet, PET CoE, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
18F-(E)-N-(3-iodoprop-2-enyl)-2β-carbofluoroethoxy-3β-(4'methylphenyl)nortropane (18F-FE-PE2I) is a newly developed dopamine transporter (DAT) PET radioligand. Full quantification methods rely on dynamic acquisition of 18F-FE-PE2I, but in a clinical setting a simplified protocol is preferable. The aims of this study were to identify the optimal acquisition time window for 18F-FE-PE2I and to validate the specific binding ratio (SBR) as a simplified quantification method. METHODS: Ten Parkinson disease (PD) patients and 10 controls were included. Ninety-three-min dynamic PET measurements with 18F-FE-PE2I were conducted using the high-resolution research tomograph (HRRT). The dynamic measurement was also smoothed to the resolution of a clinical PET system (HR). Regions of interest for the caudate, putamen, ventral striatum, substantia nigra (SN), and cerebellum were manually drawn on coregistered MR images. The outcome measure was the SBR, and the gold standard was the binding potential obtained with wavelet-aided parametric imaging (WAPI BPND). The cerebellum was used as a reference region. In a preliminary analysis, SBR was computed for 8 time windows (SBRdyn). Linear regression analysis and Bland-Altman plots were used to select the optimal acquisition time window. An average image from the selected time window was created, from which new SBR values (SBR calculated on the average image on the HRRT and SBR calculated on the average image on the simulated HR images) were calculated and compared with WAPI BPND The effect size was calculated. RESULTS: SBRdyn values for the time window between 16.5 and 42 min correlated best with WAPI BPND (r2 = 0.98, P < 0.001). Significant correlations (P < 0.001) were observed between SBRHR and WAPI-BPND (r2 = 0.95 in controls and 0.97 in PD patients). In the striatum, SBRHR values were 37% lower than BPND in controls, 29% in PD patients, whereas in the SN the underestimation was 22% in controls and 15% in PD patients. Similar effect sizes for BPND and SBRHR were found in the caudate (0.6), putamen (1.7 and 1.4), ventral striatum (0.7), and SN (0.5 and 0.4). CONCLUSION: A single 18F-FE-PE2I acquisition between 16.5 and 42 min provides the best outcome measure for simplified DAT quantification. Despite underestimation of the BPND, the SBR can be used in a clinical setting as a valid quantification method for DAT using 18F-FE-PE2I, because it provides differentiation similar to BPND between controls and PD patients.
18F-(E)-N-(3-iodoprop-2-enyl)-2β-carbofluoroethoxy-3β-(4'methylphenyl)nortropane (18F-FE-PE2I) is a newly developed dopamine transporter (DAT) PET radioligand. Full quantification methods rely on dynamic acquisition of 18F-FE-PE2I, but in a clinical setting a simplified protocol is preferable. The aims of this study were to identify the optimal acquisition time window for 18F-FE-PE2I and to validate the specific binding ratio (SBR) as a simplified quantification method. METHODS: Ten Parkinson disease (PD) patients and 10 controls were included. Ninety-three-min dynamic PET measurements with 18F-FE-PE2I were conducted using the high-resolution research tomograph (HRRT). The dynamic measurement was also smoothed to the resolution of a clinical PET system (HR). Regions of interest for the caudate, putamen, ventral striatum, substantia nigra (SN), and cerebellum were manually drawn on coregistered MR images. The outcome measure was the SBR, and the gold standard was the binding potential obtained with wavelet-aided parametric imaging (WAPI BPND). The cerebellum was used as a reference region. In a preliminary analysis, SBR was computed for 8 time windows (SBRdyn). Linear regression analysis and Bland-Altman plots were used to select the optimal acquisition time window. An average image from the selected time window was created, from which new SBR values (SBR calculated on the average image on the HRRT and SBR calculated on the average image on the simulated HR images) were calculated and compared with WAPI BPND The effect size was calculated. RESULTS: SBRdyn values for the time window between 16.5 and 42 min correlated best with WAPI BPND (r2 = 0.98, P < 0.001). Significant correlations (P < 0.001) were observed between SBRHR and WAPI-BPND (r2 = 0.95 in controls and 0.97 in PDpatients). In the striatum, SBRHR values were 37% lower than BPND in controls, 29% in PDpatients, whereas in the SN the underestimation was 22% in controls and 15% in PDpatients. Similar effect sizes for BPND and SBRHR were found in the caudate (0.6), putamen (1.7 and 1.4), ventral striatum (0.7), and SN (0.5 and 0.4). CONCLUSION: A single 18F-FE-PE2I acquisition between 16.5 and 42 min provides the best outcome measure for simplified DAT quantification. Despite underestimation of the BPND, the SBR can be used in a clinical setting as a valid quantification method for DAT using 18F-FE-PE2I, because it provides differentiation similar to BPND between controls and PDpatients.
Authors: Silvia Morbelli; Giuseppe Esposito; Javier Arbizu; Henryk Barthel; Ronald Boellaard; Nico I Bohnen; David J Brooks; Jacques Darcourt; John C Dickson; David Douglas; Alexander Drzezga; Jacob Dubroff; Ozgul Ekmekcioglu; Valentina Garibotto; Peter Herscovitch; Phillip Kuo; Adriaan Lammertsma; Sabina Pappata; Iván Peñuelas; John Seibyl; Franck Semah; Livia Tossici-Bolt; Elsmarieke Van de Giessen; Koen Van Laere; Andrea Varrone; Michele Wanner; George Zubal; Ian Law Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-05-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lisbeth Marner; Kirsten Korsholm; Lasse Anderberg; Markus N Lonsdale; Mads Radmer Jensen; Eva Brødsgaard; Charlotte L Denholt; Nic Gillings; Ian Law; Lars Friberg Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 3.434
Authors: Susanna Jakobson Mo; Jan Axelsson; Lars Jonasson; Anne Larsson; Mattias J Ögren; Margareta Ögren; Andrea Varrone; Linda Eriksson; David Bäckström; Sara Af Bjerkén; Jan Linder; Katrine Riklund Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 3.138