| Literature DB >> 28444503 |
Ji Who Kim1,2, Seongho Seo1,2, Hyeon Sik Kim3,2, Dong-Yeon Kim3,2, Ho-Young Lee1,2, Keon Wook Kang1,4,2, Dong Soo Lee1,5,2, Hee-Seung Bom3,2, Jung-Joon Min3,2, Jae Sung Lee6,7,8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: (18F-fluoropentyl)triphenylphosphonium salt (18F-FPTP) is a new promising myocardial PET imaging tracer. It shows high accumulation in cardiomyocytes and rapid clearance from liver. We performed compartmental analysis of 18F-FPTP PET images in rat and evaluated two linear analyses: linear least-squares (LLS) and a basis function method (BFM) for generating parametric images. The minimum dynamic scan duration for kinetic analysis was also investigated and computer simulation undertaken.Entities:
Keywords: Myocardial PET; Parametric image; Quantification; Simulation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28444503 PMCID: PMC5486518 DOI: 10.1007/s12149-017-1171-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Nucl Med ISSN: 0914-7187 Impact factor: 2.668
Fig. 1Spatiotemporal distribution of 18F-FPTP. a Serial positron emission tomography (PET) scan data from a rat with myocardial infarction showing rapid accumulation of 18F-FPTP in the myocardium and the marked contrast between normal myocardium and other neighboring organs such as liver and lung. b Short-axis, vertical long-axis, and horizontal long-axis images and a polar map of 18F-FPTP PET data summed between 1 and 18 min after contrast injection
Fig. 2Left ventricular input function (black line) and tissue time-activity curves for a myocardial infarction (MI) region (filled circle), remote normal myocardium (open circle), liver (open triangle), and lung (open diamond) for two time scales (left 0–1 min, right 0–10 min). Fitting curves for the MI region and normal myocardium were obtained using two-compartment (red line) and three-compartment (blue line) models
Comparison of kinetic parameters estimated using two-compartment and three-compartment models and goodness-of-fit
| Model |
|
|
|
| RMSE | AIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal myocardium | ||||||
| 2C | 6.8 ± 1.8 | 1.1 ± 0.3 | – | 0.44 ± 0.10 | 3.07 | 40.8 |
| 3C | 6.9 ± 1.8 | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.43 ± 0.11 | 3.06 | 42.6 |
| MI tissue | ||||||
| 2C | 1.4 ± 0.5 | 1.1 ± 0.4 | – | 0.32 ± 0.11 | 1.19 | 11.3 |
| 3C | 1.4 ± 0.5 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 0.02 ± 0.02 | 0.33 ± 0.12 | 1.32 | 16.7 |
K 1, k 2, k 3 and V data are means ± standard deviations
RMSE root mean square error, AIC Akaike information criteria, 2C two-compartment, 3C three-compartment
Fig. 3Scatter plot and Bland–Altman analysis of the kinetic parameters (K 1, k 2, V ) obtained using two linear analysis methods—linear least-squares (LLS) and basis function method (BFM) for the two-compartment model applied to the region of interest (ROIs) time-activity curves and those using nonlinear least-squares (NLS) estimates from ROI time-activity curves. a, c LLS. b, d BFM. In a and b, different colors are used for the normal (blue) and MI (red) data
Fig. 4Parametric images of αK 1 (α = 1 − V ), K 1, k 2 and V generated using NLS, LLS, and BFM (short-axis)
Fig. 5Scatter plot and Bland–Altman analysis of the kinetic parameters (K 1, k 2, V ) obtained by applying the ROIs onto the parametric images obtained using two linear analysis methods (LLS, BFM) and those using NLS estimates from ROI time-activity curves. a, c, LLS. b, d, BFM. In a and b, different colors are used for the normal (blue) and MI (red) data
Fig. 6Kinetic parameters estimated with different scan durations using the a NLS method on ROI time-activity curves, b LLS method on ROI time-activity curves, c BFM method on ROI time-activity curves, d LLS parametric images, and e BFM parametric images
Fig. 7Results of the simulation study: coefficients of variation (CV) (a) and bias (b) in the estimation of each parameter using the NLS (black symbols and lines), LLS (blue), and BFM (red) methods. Three K 1 levels were considered open circle 2.0, open triangle 6.0, open diamond 10.0