Guillaume Fahrni1, Nicolas A Karakatsanis2, Giulia Di Domenicantonio1, Valentina Garibotto1,3, Habib Zaidi4,5,6,7. 1. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Geneva University Hospital, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland. 2. Division of Radiopharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, 10021, USA. nak2032@med.cornell.edu. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Geneva University Hospital, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland. habib.zaidi@hcuge.ch. 5. Geneva University Neurocenter, University of Geneva, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland. habib.zaidi@hcuge.ch. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, 9700 RB, Groningen, Netherlands. habib.zaidi@hcuge.ch. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Southern Denmark, DK-500, Odense, Denmark. habib.zaidi@hcuge.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Single-pass whole-body (WB) 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is routinely employed for the clinical assessment of malignant, infectious, and inflammatory diseases. Our aim in this study is the systematic clinical assessment of lesion detectability in multi-pass WB parametric imaging enabling direct imaging of the highly quantitative 18F-FDG influx rate constant Ki, as a complement to standard-of-care standardized uptake value (SUV) imaging for a range of oncologic studies. METHODS: We compared SUV and Ki images of 18 clinical studies of different oncologic indications (lesion characterization and staging) including standard-of-care SUV and dynamic WB PET protocols in a single session. The comparison involved both the visual assessment and the quantitative evaluation of SUVmean, SUVmax, Kimean, Kimax, tumor-to-background ratio (TBRSUV, TBRKi), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNRSUV, CNRKi) quality metrics. RESULTS: Overall, both methods provided good-quality images suitable for visual interpretation. A total of 118 lesions were detected, including 40 malignant (proven) and 78 malignant (unproven) lesions. Of those, 111 were detected on SUV and 108 on Ki images. One proven malignant lesion was detected only on Ki images whereas none of the proven malignant lesions was visible only on SUV images. The proven malignant lesions had overall higher Ki TBR and CNR scores. One unproven lesion, which was later confirmed as benign, was detected only on the SUV images (false-positive). Overall, our results from 40 proven malignant lesions suggested improved sensitivity (from 92.5 to 95%) and accuracy (from 90.24 to 95.12%) and potentially enhanced specificity with Ki over SUV imaging. CONCLUSION: Oncologic WB Patlak Ki imaging may achieve equivalent or superior lesion detectability with reduced false-positive rates when complementing standard-of-care SUV imaging. KEY POINTS: • The whole-body spatio-temporal distribution of 18 F-FDG uptake may reveal clinically useful information on oncologic diseases to complement the standard-of-care SUV metric. • Parametric imaging resulted in less false-positive indications of non-specific 18 F-FDG uptake relative to SUV. • Parametric imaging may achieve equivalent or superior 18 F-FDG lesion detectability than standard-of-care SUV imaging in oncology.
PURPOSE: Single-pass whole-body (WB) 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is routinely employed for the clinical assessment of malignant, infectious, and inflammatory diseases. Our aim in this study is the systematic clinical assessment of lesion detectability in multi-pass WB parametric imaging enabling direct imaging of the highly quantitative 18F-FDG influx rate constant Ki, as a complement to standard-of-care standardized uptake value (SUV) imaging for a range of oncologic studies. METHODS: We compared SUV and Ki images of 18 clinical studies of different oncologic indications (lesion characterization and staging) including standard-of-care SUV and dynamic WB PET protocols in a single session. The comparison involved both the visual assessment and the quantitative evaluation of SUVmean, SUVmax, Kimean, Kimax, tumor-to-background ratio (TBRSUV, TBRKi), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNRSUV, CNRKi) quality metrics. RESULTS: Overall, both methods provided good-quality images suitable for visual interpretation. A total of 118 lesions were detected, including 40 malignant (proven) and 78 malignant (unproven) lesions. Of those, 111 were detected on SUV and 108 on Ki images. One proven malignant lesion was detected only on Ki images whereas none of the proven malignant lesions was visible only on SUV images. The proven malignant lesions had overall higher Ki TBR and CNR scores. One unproven lesion, which was later confirmed as benign, was detected only on the SUV images (false-positive). Overall, our results from 40 proven malignant lesions suggested improved sensitivity (from 92.5 to 95%) and accuracy (from 90.24 to 95.12%) and potentially enhanced specificity with Ki over SUV imaging. CONCLUSION: Oncologic WB Patlak Ki imaging may achieve equivalent or superior lesion detectability with reduced false-positive rates when complementing standard-of-care SUV imaging. KEY POINTS: • The whole-body spatio-temporal distribution of 18 F-FDG uptake may reveal clinically useful information on oncologic diseases to complement the standard-of-care SUV metric. • Parametric imaging resulted in less false-positive indications of non-specific 18 F-FDG uptake relative to SUV. • Parametric imaging may achieve equivalent or superior 18 F-FDG lesion detectability than standard-of-care SUV imaging in oncology.
Authors: Nanette M T Freedman; Senthil K Sundaram; Karen Kurdziel; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Millie Whatley; Joann M Carson; David Sellers; Steven K Libutti; James C Yang; Stephen L Bacharach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-10-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; Vassilios Georgoulias; Michael Eisenhut; Felix Herth; Sophia Koukouraki; Helmut R Mäcke; Uwe Haberkorn; Ludwig G Strauss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-03-29 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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
Authors: Jana Ivanidze; Michelle Roytman; Myrto Skafida; Sean Kim; Shannon Glynn; Joseph R Osborne; Susan C Pannullo; Sadek Nehmeh; Rohan Ramakrishna; Theodore H Schwartz; Jonathan P S Knisely; Eaton Lin; Nicolas A Karakatsanis Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2022-03