| Literature DB >> 28547129 |
Christopher Coello1,2, Marie Fisk3, Divya Mohan4,5, Frederick J Wilson6, Andrew P Brown7, Michael I Polkey4, Ian Wilkinson3,8, Ruth Tal-Singer5, Philip S Murphy6, Joseph Cheriyan3,9,8,10, Roger N Gunn7,11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An inflammatory reaction in the airways and lung parenchyma, comprised mainly of neutrophils and alveolar macrophages, is present in some patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Thoracic fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) has been proposed as a promising imaging biomarker to assess this inflammation. We sought to introduce a fully quantitative analysis method and compare this with previously published studies based on the Patlak approach using a dataset comprising 18F-FDG PET scans from COPD subjects with elevated circulating inflammatory markers (fibrinogen) and matched healthy volunteers (HV). Dynamic 18F-FDG PET scans were obtained for high-fibrinogen (>2.8 g/l) COPD subjects (N = 10) and never smoking HV (N = 10). Lungs were segmented using co-registered computed tomography images and subregions (upper, middle and lower) were semi-automatically defined. A quantitative analysis approach was developed, which corrects for the presence of air and blood in the lung (qABL method), enabling direct estimation of the metabolic rate of FDG in lung tissue. A normalised Patlak analysis approach was also performed to enable comparison with previously published results. Effect sizes (Hedge's g) were used to compare HV and COPD groups.Entities:
Keywords: 18F-FDG; COPD; Lung inflammation; Modelling; PET
Year: 2017 PMID: 28547129 PMCID: PMC5445063 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-017-0291-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res ISSN: 2191-219X Impact factor: 3.138
Fig. 1Overview of the kinetic modelling approaches implemented in this paper to analyse dynamic 18F-FDG lung PET data
Fig. 2Axial (left), coronal (middle) and sagittal (right) slices for the CT-AC (first and second row) and the averaged (30–60 min) SUV (third row) and Patslope (fourth row) parametric images of a representative COPD patient (M, 66 years). The axial slice was chosen in the upper part of the lung as being representative of tissue loss in COPD. CT-AC: computed tomography attenuation correction, SUV: standardised uptake value
Demographics of the HV and the COPD cohorts
| HV | COPD | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 70 ± 7 | 71 ± 7 |
| Gender (M/F) | 09/01 | 08/02 |
| Smokers (%)a | 0 | 10 |
| Mean total pack years (years) | 0 | 42 ± 6 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 26.4 ± 2.81 | 27.6 ± 4.20 |
| FEV1 (l) | 2.88 ± 0.64 | 1.39 ± 0.33 |
| FEV1 (% predicted) | 103 ± 15 | 48 ± 12 |
FEV1 forced expiratory volume in 1 s
a% of current smokers (the rest being ex-smokers)
Fig. 3Left: representative TAC of a HV subject and estimated components obtained using the qABL method. Right: graphical representation of the different components involved in the qABL method: air, blood and tissue (tissue being modelled by an irreversible 2TC model for 18F-FDG)
Parameter values across HV (N = 10) and COPD (N = 10) subjects in four lung ROIs
| Whole lung | Upper lung | Middle lung | Lower lung | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HV | COPD | HV | COPD | HV | COPD | HV | COPD | ||
|
|
| 0.72 | 0.79 | 0.74 | 0.80 | 0.72 | 0.79 | 0.68 | 0.78 |
| CoV (%) | 6.0 | 5.2 | 5.0 | 7.3 | 6.0 | 5.1 | 7.7 | 4.4 | |
| SUV |
| 0.63 | 0.45 | 0.60 | 0.45 | 0.62 | 0.45 | 0.68 | 0.45 |
| CoV (%) | 20 | 26 | 18 | 37 | 21 | 25 | 20 | 25 | |
| Patslope |
| 0.61 | 0.51 | 0.54 | 0.52 | 0.57 | 0.51 | 0.73 | 0.50 |
| CoV (%) | 21 | 22 | 30 | 35 | 26 | 22 | 31 | 33 | |
| Patintcpt |
| 0.21 | 0.13 | 0.21 | 0.13 | 0.21 | 0.13 | 0.23 | 0.13 |
| CoV (%) | 13 | 26 | 12 | 38 | 14 | 24 | 17 | 26 | |
|
|
| 2.9 | 3.9 | 2.7 | 4.1 | 2.72 | 3.9 | 3.4 | 3.8 |
| CoV (%) | 19 | 18 | 31 | 28 | 23 | 18 | 42 | 31 | |
|
|
| 6.0 | 5.7 | 7.2 | 6.3 | 5.9 | 6.2 | 5.4 | 4.8 |
| CoV (%) | 32 | 29 | 42 | 37 | 32 | 35 | 46 | 40 | |
|
|
| 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.10 |
| CoV (%) | 18 | 36 | 18 | 49 | 18 | 37 | 27 | 26 | |
fractional air volume measured using CT-AC, SUV standardised uptake value, Pat Patlak slope, Pat Patlak intercept, ratio Patslope/Patintcpt, K air and blood corrected metabolic rate of 18F-FDG in lung tissue, V fractional blood volume
Fig. 4Metabolic rate of 18F-FDG in the whole lung (top) and the upper lung (bottom) estimated with normalised Patlak (left) and qABL method (right) in HV and COPD cohorts. Individual points are plotted together with median, q 1 (first quartile) and q 3 (third quartile). Whiskers extent: q 3 − 1.5 * (q 3 − q 1) for the low boundary and q 3 + 1.5 * (q 3 − q 1) for the high boundary
Fig. 5Group comparison of the fractional air volume (a), fractional blood volume V (b), fractional tissue volume () (c) and tissue to blood ratio (d) parameters in the whole lung obtained with the qABL method
Fig. 6Scatter plot showing the relationship between the intercept of the graphical Patlak analysis (Pat ) and the fractional blood volume (V ). Left whole lung, Right upper lung, Blue squares HV, violet circles COPD
Comparison of nK Pat between our results and previously published
| ROI | HV | COPD | Group comparison | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | Mean ± Std | # | Mean ± Std | Abs diff. | % change | Effect size (g) | ||
| Ref [ | WL | 8 | 3.0 ± 1.2 | 10 | 4.2 ± 1.6 | 1.2 | +40% | 0.79 |
| This dataset | WL | 10 | 2.8 ± 0.4 | 10 | 3.9 ± 0.7 | 1.1 | +39% | 1.59 |
| Ref [ | UL | 9 | 4.5 ± 0.9 | 10 | 6.1 ± 1.6 | 1.6 | +36% | 1.15 |
| This dataset | UL | 10 | 2.7 ± 0.8 | 10 | 4.1 ± 1.1 | 1.6 | +64% | 1.42 |
WL whole lung, UL upper lung