Martin A Lodge1, Wojciech Lesniak2, Michael A Gorin2,3, Kenneth J Pienta3, Steven P Rowe2,3, Martin G Pomper2,3. 1. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and mlodge1@jhmi.edu. 2. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and. 3. James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
Quantitative imaging biomarkers are widely used in PET for both research and clinical applications, yet bias in the underlying image data has not been well characterized. In the absence of a readily available reference standard for in vivo quantification, bias in PET images has been inferred using physical phantoms, even though arrangements of this sort provide only a poor approximation of the imaging environment in real patient examinations. In this study, we used data acquired from patient volunteers to assess PET quantitative bias in vivo. Image-derived radioactivity concentrations in the descending aorta were compared with blood samples counted on a calibrated γ-counter. Methods: Ten patients with prostate cancer were studied using 2-(3-(1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl)-ureido)-pentanedioic acid PET/CT. For each patient, 3 whole-body PET/CT image series were acquired after a single administration of the radiotracer: shortly after injection as well as approximately 1 and 4 h later. Venous blood samples were obtained at 8 time points over an 8-h period, and whole blood was counted on a NaI γ-counter. A 10-mm-diameter, 20-mm-long cylindric volume of interest was positioned in the descending thoracic aorta to estimate the PET-derived radioactivity concentration in blood. A triexponential function was fit to the γ-counter blood data and used to estimate the radioactivity concentration at the time of each PET acquisition. Results: The PET-derived and γ-counter-derived radioactivity concentrations were linearly related, with an R 2 of 0.985, over a range of relevant radioactivity concentrations. The mean difference between the PET and γ-counter data was 4.8% ± 8.6%, with the PET measurements tending to be greater. Conclusion: Human image data acquired on a conventional whole-body PET/CT system with a typical clinical protocol differed by an average of around 5% from blood samples counted on a calibrated γ-counter. This bias may be partly attributable to residual uncorrected scatter or attenuation correction error. These data offer an opportunity for the assessment of PET bias in vivo and provide additional support for the use of quantitative imaging biomarkers.
Quantitative imaging biomarkers are widely used in PET for both research and clinical applications, yet bias in the underlying image data has not been well characterized. In the absence of a readily available reference standard for in vivo quantification, bias in PET images has been inferred using physical phantoms, even though arrangements of this sort provide only a poor approximation of the imaging environment in real patient examinations. In this study, we used data acquired from patient volunteers to assess PET quantitative bias in vivo. Image-derived radioactivity concentrations in the descending aorta were compared with blood samples counted on a calibrated γ-counter. Methods: Ten patients with prostate cancer were studied using 2-(3-(1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl)-ureido)-pentanedioic acid PET/CT. For each patient, 3 whole-body PET/CT image series were acquired after a single administration of the radiotracer: shortly after injection as well as approximately 1 and 4 h later. Venous blood samples were obtained at 8 time points over an 8-h period, and whole blood was counted on a NaI γ-counter. A 10-mm-diameter, 20-mm-long cylindric volume of interest was positioned in the descending thoracic aorta to estimate the PET-derived radioactivity concentration in blood. A triexponential function was fit to the γ-counter blood data and used to estimate the radioactivity concentration at the time of each PET acquisition. Results: The PET-derived and γ-counter-derived radioactivity concentrations were linearly related, with an R 2 of 0.985, over a range of relevant radioactivity concentrations. The mean difference between the PET and γ-counter data was 4.8% ± 8.6%, with the PET measurements tending to be greater. Conclusion: Human image data acquired on a conventional whole-body PET/CT system with a typical clinical protocol differed by an average of around 5% from blood samples counted on a calibrated γ-counter. This bias may be partly attributable to residual uncorrected scatter or attenuation correction error. These data offer an opportunity for the assessment of PET bias in vivo and provide additional support for the use of quantitative imaging biomarkers.
Authors: Tobias Schroeder; Marcos F Vidal Melo; Guido Musch; R Scott Harris; Jose G Venegas; Tilo Winkler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-10-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Darrin Byrd; Rebecca Christopfel; Grae Arabasz; Ciprian Catana; Joel Karp; Martin A Lodge; Charles Laymon; Eduardo G Moros; Mikalai Budzevich; Sadek Nehmeh; Joshua Scheuermann; John Sunderland; Jun Zhang; Paul Kinahan Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-04
Authors: Zsolt Szabo; Esther Mena; Steven P Rowe; Donika Plyku; Rosa Nidal; Mario A Eisenberger; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Hong Fan; Robert F Dannals; Ying Chen; Ronnie C Mease; Melin Vranesic; Akrita Bhatnagar; George Sgouros; Steve Y Cho; Martin G Pomper Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: V Dhawan; S Takikawa; W Robeson; P Spetsieris; T Chaly; R Dahl; I Zanzi; D Bandyopadhyay; D Margouleff; D Eidelberg Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 1994-09 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: R Parkash; R A deKemp; T D Ruddy; A Kitsikis; R Hart; L Beauchesne; L Beauschene; Kathryn Williams; R A Davies; M Labinaz; R S B Beanlands Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Edwin K Leung; Eric Berg; Negar Omidvari; Benjamin A Spencer; Elizabeth Li; Yasser G Abdelhafez; Jeffrey P Schmall; Weiping Liu; Liuchun He; Songsong Tang; Yilin Liu; Yun Dong; Terry Jones; Simon R Cherry; Ramsey D Badawi Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 4.174