Jacobo Cal-Gonzalez1,2, Juan José Vaquero3,4, Joaquín L Herraiz5, Mailyn Pérez-Liva5, María Luisa Soto-Montenegro4,6, Santiago Peña-Zalbidea3,4,7, Manuel Desco3,4,6,8, José Manuel Udías5. 1. QIMP group, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. jacobo.calgonzalez@meduniwien.ac.at. 2. Grupo de Física Nuclear, Dpto. Física Atómica, Molecular y Nuclear, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, CEI Moncloa, Madrid, Spain. jacobo.calgonzalez@meduniwien.ac.at. 3. Departamento de Bioingeniería e Ingeniería Aeroespacial, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 4. Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. 5. Grupo de Física Nuclear, Dpto. Física Atómica, Molecular y Nuclear, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, CEI Moncloa, Madrid, Spain. 6. CIBERSAM, Madrid, Spain. 7. IRAB-Institut de Radiofarmàcia Aplicada de Barcelona (PRBB), Barcelona, Spain. 8. Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares Carlos III (CNIC), Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Image quality of positron emission tomography (PET) tracers that emits high-energy positrons, such as Ga-68, Rb-82, or I-124, is significantly affected by positron range (PR) effects. PR effects are especially important in small animal PET studies, since they can limit spatial resolution and quantitative accuracy of the images. Since generators accessibility has made Ga-68 tracers wide available, the aim of this study is to show how the quantitative results of [68Ga]DOTA-labeled PET/X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging of neuroendocrine tumors in mice can be improved using positron range correction (PRC). PROCEDURES: Eighteen scans in 12 mice were evaluated, with three different models of tumors: PC12, AR42J, and meningiomas. In addition, three different [68Ga]DOTA-labeled radiotracers were used to evaluate the PRC with different tracer distributions: [68Ga]DOTANOC, [68Ga]DOTATOC, and [68Ga]DOTATATE. Two PRC methods were evaluated: a tissue-dependent (TD-PRC) and a tissue-dependent spatially-variant correction (TDSV-PRC). Taking a region in the liver as reference, the tissue-to-liver ratio values for tumor tissue (TLRtumor), lung (TLRlung), and necrotic areas within the tumors (TLRnecrotic) and their respective relative variations (ΔTLR) were evaluated. RESULTS: All TLR values in the PRC images were significantly different (p < 0.05) than the ones from non-PRC images. The relative differences of the tumor TLR values, respect to the case with no PRC, were ΔTLRtumor 87 ± 41 % (TD-PRC) and 85 ± 46 % (TDSV-PRC). TLRlung decreased when applying PRC, being this effect more remarkable for the TDSV-PRC method, with relative differences respect to no PRC: ΔTLRlung = - 45 ± 24 (TD-PRC), - 55 ± 18 (TDSV-PRC). TLRnecrotic values also decreased when using PRC, with more noticeable differences for TD-PRC: ΔTLRnecrotic = - 52 ± 6 (TD-PRC), - 48 ± 8 (TDSV-PRC). CONCLUSION: The PRC methods proposed provide a significant quantitative improvement in [68Ga]DOTA-labeled PET/CT imaging of mice with neuroendocrine tumors, hence demonstrating that these techniques could also ameliorate the deleterious effect of the positron range in clinical PET imaging.
PURPOSE: Image quality of positron emission tomography (PET) tracers that emits high-energy positrons, such as Ga-68, Rb-82, or I-124, is significantly affected by positron range (PR) effects. PR effects are especially important in small animal PET studies, since they can limit spatial resolution and quantitative accuracy of the images. Since generators accessibility has made Ga-68 tracers wide available, the aim of this study is to show how the quantitative results of [68Ga]DOTA-labeled PET/X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging of neuroendocrine tumors in mice can be improved using positron range correction (PRC). PROCEDURES: Eighteen scans in 12 mice were evaluated, with three different models of tumors: PC12, AR42J, and meningiomas. In addition, three different [68Ga]DOTA-labeled radiotracers were used to evaluate the PRC with different tracer distributions: [68Ga]DOTANOC, [68Ga]DOTATOC, and [68Ga]DOTATATE. Two PRC methods were evaluated: a tissue-dependent (TD-PRC) and a tissue-dependent spatially-variant correction (TDSV-PRC). Taking a region in the liver as reference, the tissue-to-liver ratio values for tumor tissue (TLRtumor), lung (TLRlung), and necrotic areas within the tumors (TLRnecrotic) and their respective relative variations (ΔTLR) were evaluated. RESULTS: All TLR values in the PRC images were significantly different (p < 0.05) than the ones from non-PRC images. The relative differences of the tumor TLR values, respect to the case with no PRC, were ΔTLRtumor 87 ± 41 % (TD-PRC) and 85 ± 46 % (TDSV-PRC). TLRlung decreased when applying PRC, being this effect more remarkable for the TDSV-PRC method, with relative differences respect to no PRC: ΔTLRlung = - 45 ± 24 (TD-PRC), - 55 ± 18 (TDSV-PRC). TLRnecrotic values also decreased when using PRC, with more noticeable differences for TD-PRC: ΔTLRnecrotic = - 52 ± 6 (TD-PRC), - 48 ± 8 (TDSV-PRC). CONCLUSION: The PRC methods proposed provide a significant quantitative improvement in [68Ga]DOTA-labeled PET/CT imaging of mice with neuroendocrine tumors, hence demonstrating that these techniques could also ameliorate the deleterious effect of the positron range in clinical PET imaging.
Entities:
Keywords:
PET image reconstruction; Positron range correction; Small animal PET/CT; [68Ga]DOTA-labeled radiotracers
Authors: Carla J Mathias; Michael R Lewis; David E Reichert; Richard Laforest; Terry L Sharp; Jason S Lewis; Zhen-Fan Yang; David J Waters; Paul W Snyder; Philip S Low; Michael J Welch; Mark A Green Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Jarmo Teuho; Leon Riehakainen; Aake Honkaniemi; Olli Moisio; Chunlei Han; Marko Tirri; Shihao Liu; Tove J Grönroos; Jie Liu; Lin Wan; Xiao Liang; Yiqing Ling; Yuexuan Hua; Anne Roivainen; Juhani Knuuti; Qingguo Xie; Mika Teräs; Nicola D'Ascenzo; Riku Klén Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Norbert Galldiks; Frank Angenstein; Jan-Michael Werner; Elena K Bauer; Robin Gutsche; Gereon R Fink; Karl-Josef Langen; Philipp Lohmann Journal: Brain Pathol Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 6.508
Authors: Hunor Kertész; Thomas Beyer; Vladimir Panin; Walter Jentzen; Jacobo Cal-Gonzalez; Alexander Berger; Laszlo Papp; Peter L Kench; Deepak Bharkhada; Jorge Cabello; Maurizio Conti; Ivo Rausch Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Malte Jensen; Simon Bentsen; Andreas Clemmensen; Jacob Kildevang Jensen; Johanne Madsen; Jonas Rossing; Anna Laier; Philip Hasbak; Andreas Kjaer; Rasmus Sejersten Ripa Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2022-07-30
Authors: Anja Braune; Liane Oehme; Robert Freudenberg; Frank Hofheinz; Jörg van den Hoff; Jörg Kotzerke; Sebastian Hoberück Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2022-09-05
Authors: Patricia E Edem; Jesper T Jørgensen; Kamilla Nørregaard; Rafaella Rossin; Abdolreza Yazdani; John F Valliant; Marc Robillard; Matthias M Herth; Andreas Kjaer Journal: Molecules Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 4.411