Barbara Katharina Geist1, Haiqun Xing2,3, Jingnan Wang2,3, Ximin Shi2,3, Haitao Zhao4, Marcus Hacker1, Xinting Sang4, Li Huo5,6, Xiang Li1. 1. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, 100730, China. 3. Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Targeted Diagnosis and Therapy in Nuclear Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, 100730, China. 4. Department of Liver Surgery, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, 100730, China. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, 100730, China. HuoLi@pumch.cn. 6. Beijing Key Laboratory of Molecular Targeted Diagnosis and Therapy in Nuclear Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, 100730, China. HuoLi@pumch.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study aimed to establish a 68Ga-FAPI-04 kinetic model in hepatic lesions, to determine the potential role of kinetic parameters in the differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from non-HCC lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Time activity curves (TACs) were extracted from seven HCC lesions and five non-HCC lesions obtained from 68Ga-FAPI-04 dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) scans of eight patients. Three kinetic models were applied to the TACs, using image-derived hepatic artery and/or portal vein as input functions. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was taken for the lesions, the hepatic artery, and for the portal veins-the mean SUV for all healthy regions. The optimum model was chosen after applying the Schwartz information criteria to the TACs, differences in model parameters between HCC, non-HCC lesions, and healthy tissue were evaluated with the ANOVA test. RESULTS: A reversible two-tissue compartment model using both the arterial as well as venous input function was most preferred and showed significant differences in the kinetic parameters VND, VT, and BPND between HCC, non-HCC lesions, and healthy regions (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Several model parameters derived from a two-tissue compartment kinetic model with two image-derived input function from vein and aorta and using SUVmax allow a differentiation between HCC and non-HCC lesions, obtained from dynamically performed PET scans using FAPI.
BACKGROUND: The study aimed to establish a 68Ga-FAPI-04 kinetic model in hepatic lesions, to determine the potential role of kinetic parameters in the differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from non-HCC lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Time activity curves (TACs) were extracted from seven HCC lesions and five non-HCC lesions obtained from 68Ga-FAPI-04 dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) scans of eight patients. Three kinetic models were applied to the TACs, using image-derived hepatic artery and/or portal vein as input functions. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was taken for the lesions, the hepatic artery, and for the portal veins-the mean SUV for all healthy regions. The optimum model was chosen after applying the Schwartz information criteria to the TACs, differences in model parameters between HCC, non-HCC lesions, and healthy tissue were evaluated with the ANOVA test. RESULTS: A reversible two-tissue compartment model using both the arterial as well as venous input function was most preferred and showed significant differences in the kinetic parameters VND, VT, and BPND between HCC, non-HCC lesions, and healthy regions (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Several model parameters derived from a two-tissue compartment kinetic model with two image-derived input function from vein and aorta and using SUVmax allow a differentiation between HCC and non-HCC lesions, obtained from dynamically performed PET scans using FAPI.
Authors: Thomas Lindner; Anastasia Loktev; Annette Altmann; Frederik Giesel; Clemens Kratochwil; Jürgen Debus; Dirk Jäger; Walter Mier; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sandeep S V Golla; Sofie M Adriaanse; Maqsood Yaqub; Albert D Windhorst; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Bart N M van Berckel; Ronald Boellaard Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2017-12-06
Authors: Anastasia Loktev; Thomas Lindner; Walter Mier; Jürgen Debus; Annette Altmann; Dirk Jäger; Frederik Giesel; Clemens Kratochwil; Philippe Barthe; Christian Roumestand; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: K Dendl; R Finck; F L Giesel; C Kratochwil; T Lindner; W Mier; J Cardinale; C Kesch; M Röhrich; H Rathke; H Gampp; J Ristau; S Adeberg; D Jäger; J Debus; U Haberkorn; S A Koerber Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 10.057