Arman Rahmim1,2, Martin A Lodge3, Nicolas A Karakatsanis4, Vladimir Y Panin5, Yun Zhou3, Alan McMillan6, Steve Cho6, Habib Zaidi7, Michael E Casey5, Richard L Wahl8. 1. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, JHOC Building Room 3245, 601 N. Caroline St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. arahmim1@jhmi.edu. 2. Departments of Radiology and Physics & Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada. arahmim1@jhmi.edu. 3. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, JHOC Building Room 3245, 601 N. Caroline St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 5. Siemens Healthineers, Knoxville, TN, 37932, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 53705, USA. 7. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Geneva University Hospital, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland. 8. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this article, we discuss dynamic whole-body (DWB) positron emission tomography (PET) as an imaging tool with significant clinical potential, in relation to conventional standard uptake value (SUV) imaging. BACKGROUND: DWB PET involves dynamic data acquisition over an extended axial range, capturing tracer kinetic information that is not available with conventional static acquisition protocols. The method can be performed within reasonable clinical imaging times, and enables generation of multiple types of PET images with complementary information in a single imaging session. Importantly, DWB PET can be used to produce multi-parametric images of (i) Patlak slope (influx rate) and (ii) intercept (referred to sometimes as "distribution volume"), while also providing (iii) a conventional 'SUV-equivalent' image for certain protocols. RESULTS: We provide an overview of ongoing efforts (primarily focused on FDG PET) and discuss potential clinically relevant applications. CONCLUSION: Overall, the framework of DWB imaging [applicable to both PET/CT(computed tomography) and PET/MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)] generates quantitative measures that may add significant value to conventional SUV image-derived measures, with limited pitfalls as we also discuss in this work.
PURPOSE: In this article, we discuss dynamic whole-body (DWB) positron emission tomography (PET) as an imaging tool with significant clinical potential, in relation to conventional standard uptake value (SUV) imaging. BACKGROUND:DWB PET involves dynamic data acquisition over an extended axial range, capturing tracer kinetic information that is not available with conventional static acquisition protocols. The method can be performed within reasonable clinical imaging times, and enables generation of multiple types of PET images with complementary information in a single imaging session. Importantly, DWB PET can be used to produce multi-parametric images of (i) Patlak slope (influx rate) and (ii) intercept (referred to sometimes as "distribution volume"), while also providing (iii) a conventional 'SUV-equivalent' image for certain protocols. RESULTS: We provide an overview of ongoing efforts (primarily focused on FDG PET) and discuss potential clinically relevant applications. CONCLUSION: Overall, the framework of DWB imaging [applicable to both PET/CT(computed tomography) and PET/MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)] generates quantitative measures that may add significant value to conventional SUV image-derived measures, with limited pitfalls as we also discuss in this work.
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Yusuf Menda; Laura L Boles Ponto; Michael K Schultz; Gideon K D Zamba; G Leonard Watkins; David L Bushnell; Mark T Madsen; John J Sunderland; Michael M Graham; Thomas M O'Dorisio; M Sue O'Dorisio Journal: Pancreas Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Nicolas A Karakatsanis; Yun Zhou; Martin A Lodge; Michael E Casey; Richard L Wahl; Habib Zaidi; Arman Rahmim Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 3.609
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
Authors: Paul Lecoq; Christian Morel; John O Prior; Dimitris Visvikis; Stefan Gundacker; Etiennette Auffray; Peter Križan; Rosana Martinez Turtos; Dominique Thers; Edoardo Charbon; Joao Varela; Christophe de La Taille; Angelo Rivetti; Dominique Breton; Jean-François Pratte; Johan Nuyts; Suleman Surti; Stefaan Vandenberghe; Paul Marsden; Katia Parodi; Jose Maria Benlloch; Mathieu Benoit Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Tonghe Wang; Yang Lei; Yabo Fu; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu; Jonathon A Nye; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: Phys Med Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Ole L Munk; Lars C Gormsen; André H Dias; Mette F Pedersen; Helle Danielsen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 9.236