Mingzan Zhuang1,2, Nicolas A Karakatsanis3,4, Rudi A J O Dierckx1, Habib Zaidi5,6,7,8. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, 9700 RB, Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. 2. The Key Laboratory of Digital Signal and Image Processing of Guangdong Province, Shantou University, Shantou, China. 3. Division of Radiopharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY, 10021, USA. 4. Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, 10029, USA. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, 9700 RB, Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. habib.zaidi@hcuge.ch. 6. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Geneva University Hospital, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland. habib.zaidi@hcuge.ch. 7. Geneva University Neurocenter, University of Geneva, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland. habib.zaidi@hcuge.ch. 8. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Southern Denmark, 5000, Odense, Denmark. habib.zaidi@hcuge.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Whole-body (WB) dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) enables imaging of highly quantitative physiological uptake parameters beyond the standardized uptake value (SUV). We present a novel dynamic WB anthropomorphic PET simulation framework to assess the potential of 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) net uptake rate constant (Ki) imaging in characterizing tumor heterogeneity. PROCEDURES: Validated heterogeneous [18F]FDG tumor kinetics were modeled within the XCAT phantom (ground truth). Thereafter, static (SUV) and dynamic PET data were simulated and reconstructed, followed by indirect WB Patlak Ki imaging. Subsequently, we compared the methods of affinity propagation (AP) and automatic segmentation with active contour (MASAC) to evaluate the impact of tumor delineation. Finally, we extracted the metabolically active tumor volume (MATV), Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and the intratumoral heterogeneity metrics of the area under the cumulative intensity histogram curve (CIHAUC), homogeneity, entropy, dissimilarity, high-intensity emphasis (HIE), and zone percentage (ZP), along with the target-to-background (TBR) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR). RESULTS: Ki images presented higher TBR but lower CNR compared to SUV. In contrast to MASAC, AP segmentation resulted in smaller bias for MATV and DSC scores in Ki compared to SUV images. All metrics, except for ZP, were significantly different in AP segmentation between SUV and Ki images, with significant correlation observed for MATV, homogeneity, dissimilarity, and entropy. With MASAC segmentation, CIHAUC, homogeneity, and dissimilarity were significantly different between SUV and Ki images, with all metrics, except for HIE and ZP, being significantly correlated. In ground truth images, increased heterogeneity was observed with Ki compared to SUV, with a high correlation for all metrics. CONCLUSIONS: A novel simulation framework was developed for the assessment of the quantitative benefits of WB Patlak PET on realistic heterogeneous tumor models. Quantitative analysis showed that WB Ki imaging may provide enhanced TBR and facilitate lesion segmentation and quantification beyond the SUV capabilities.
PURPOSE: Whole-body (WB) dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) enables imaging of highly quantitative physiological uptake parameters beyond the standardized uptake value (SUV). We present a novel dynamic WB anthropomorphic PET simulation framework to assess the potential of 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) net uptake rate constant (Ki) imaging in characterizing tumor heterogeneity. PROCEDURES: Validated heterogeneous [18F]FDG tumor kinetics were modeled within the XCAT phantom (ground truth). Thereafter, static (SUV) and dynamic PET data were simulated and reconstructed, followed by indirect WB Patlak Ki imaging. Subsequently, we compared the methods of affinity propagation (AP) and automatic segmentation with active contour (MASAC) to evaluate the impact of tumor delineation. Finally, we extracted the metabolically active tumor volume (MATV), Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and the intratumoral heterogeneity metrics of the area under the cumulative intensity histogram curve (CIHAUC), homogeneity, entropy, dissimilarity, high-intensity emphasis (HIE), and zone percentage (ZP), along with the target-to-background (TBR) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR). RESULTS: Ki images presented higher TBR but lower CNR compared to SUV. In contrast to MASAC, AP segmentation resulted in smaller bias for MATV and DSC scores in Ki compared to SUV images. All metrics, except for ZP, were significantly different in AP segmentation between SUV and Ki images, with significant correlation observed for MATV, homogeneity, dissimilarity, and entropy. With MASAC segmentation, CIHAUC, homogeneity, and dissimilarity were significantly different between SUV and Ki images, with all metrics, except for HIE and ZP, being significantly correlated. In ground truth images, increased heterogeneity was observed with Ki compared to SUV, with a high correlation for all metrics. CONCLUSIONS: A novel simulation framework was developed for the assessment of the quantitative benefits of WB Patlak PET on realistic heterogeneous tumor models. Quantitative analysis showed that WB Ki imaging may provide enhanced TBR and facilitate lesion segmentation and quantification beyond the SUV capabilities.
Authors: Trang H La; Edith J Filion; Brit B Turnbull; Jackie N Chu; Percy Lee; Khoa Nguyen; Peter Maxim; Andy Quon; Edward E Graves; Billy W Loo; Quynh-Thu Le Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-03-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alexandr Kristian; Mona Elisabeth Revheim; Hong Qu; Gunhild M Mælandsmo; Olav Engebråten; Therese Seierstad; Eirik Malinen Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Nicolas A Karakatsanis; Martin A Lodge; Abdel K Tahari; Y Zhou; Richard L Wahl; Arman Rahmim Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Joost J M van Griethuysen; Andriy Fedorov; Chintan Parmar; Ahmed Hosny; Nicole Aucoin; Vivek Narayan; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin; Steve Pieper; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Lilja B Solnes; Yafu Yin; Grant Kitchen; Martin A Lodge; Nicolas A Karakatsanis; Arman Rahmim; Martin G Pomper; Jeffrey P Leal Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.056