| Literature DB >> 34046730 |
Ronald Boellaard1,2, Michel Koole3, Guilherme D Kolinger1, David Vállez García1, Talakad G Lohith4, Eric D Hostetler4, Cyrille Sur4, Arie Struyk5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: [18F]MK-6240 is a PET tracer with sub-nanomolar affinity for neurofibrillary tangles. Therefore, tau quantification is possible with [18F]MK-6240 PET/CT scans, and it can be used for assessment of Alzheimer's disease. However, long acquisition scans are required to provide fully quantitative estimates of pharmacokinetic parameters. Therefore, on the present study, dual-time-window (DTW) acquisitions was simulated to reduce PET/CT acquisition time, while taking into consideration perfusion changes and possible scanning protocol non-compliance. To that end, time activity curves (TACs) representing a 120-min acquisition (TAC120) were simulated using a two-tissue compartment model with metabolite corrected arterial input function from 90-min dynamic [18F]MK-6240 PET scans of three healthy control subjects and five subjects with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease. Therefore, TACs corresponding to different levels of specific binding were generated and then various perfusion changes were simulated. Next, DTW acquisitions were simulated consisting of an acquisition starting at tracer injection, a break and a second acquisition starting at 90 min post-injection. Finally, non-compliance with the PET/CT scanning protocol were simulated to assess its impact on quantification. All TACs were quantified using reference Logan's distribution volume ratio (DVR) and standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR90) using the cerebellar cortex as reference region.Entities:
Keywords: Dual-time-window; PET quantification; Reference logan; Tau imaging; [18F]MK-6240
Year: 2021 PMID: 34046730 PMCID: PMC8160074 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-021-00790-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res ISSN: 2191-219X Impact factor: 3.138
Subject demographics
| Subject | Clinical diagnosis | Sex | Age (y) | MMSE score | Dose (MBq) | Arterial sampling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | HC | F | 59 | 29 | 161 | Yes |
| S2 | HC | M | 66 | 29 | 153 | Yes |
| S3 | HC | M | 68 | 29 | 155 | Yes |
| S4 | AD | M | 67 | 11 | 160 | Yes |
| S5 | MCI | M | 74 | 28 | 162 | Yes |
| S6 | MCI | M | 80 | 27 | 158 | Yes |
| S7 | AD | M | 74 | 13 | 163 | No |
| S8 | AD | F | 70 | 13 | 157 | No |
Average kinetic parameters from the two-tissue compartment model
| Diagnosis | Region | Mean K1 (SD) | Mean k2 (SD) | Mean k3 (SD) | Mean k4 (SD) | Mean DVR (SD) | Mean VT (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HC | Cerebellum | 0.402 (0.07) | 0.151 (0.01) | 0.0107 (0.002) | 0.0160 (0.005) | - | 4.63 (1.5) |
| VOI 1 | 0.273 (0.04) | 0.136 (0.01) | 0.0173 (0.003) | 0.0200 (0.007) | 0.85 (0.72) | 3.85 (0.9) | |
| VOI 2 | 0.301 (0.06) | 0.124 (0.01) | 0.0148 (0.003) | 0.0264 (0.006) | 0.84 (0.11) | 3.80 (0.7) | |
| VOI 3 | 0.283 (0.04) | 0.125 (0.004) | 0.0138 (0.002) | 0.0189 (0.006) | 0.88 (0.10) | 4.01 (0.9) | |
| VOI 3+ | 0.255 (0.04) | 0.124 (0.003) | 0.0155 (0.0003) | 0.0157 (0.002) | 0.91 (0.12) | 4.11 (0.7) | |
| VOI 4 | 0.325 (0.05) | 0.140 (0.01) | 0.0139 (0.002) | 0.0172 (0.005) | 0.94 (0.07) | 4.30 (1.1) | |
| VOI 5 | 0.362 (0.05) | 0.160 (0.01) | 0.0155 (0.002) | 0.0198 (0.004) | 0.90 (0.08) | 4.10 (1.0) | |
| VOI 6 | 0.345 (0.05) | 0.165 (0.01) | 0.0168 (0.001) | 0.0208 (0.004) | 0.84 (0.09) | 3.82 (0.9) | |
| MCI/AD | Cerebellum | 0.408 (0.09) | 0.140 (0.01) | 0.0198 (0.002) | 0.0264 (0.007) | - | 5.20 (1.0) |
| VOI 1 | 0.243 (0.03) | 0.102 (0.02) | 0.0380 (0.006) | 0.0147 (0.004) | 1.78 (0.62) | 9.31 (4.0) | |
| VOI 2 | 0.256 (0.04) | 0.105 (0.02) | 0.0343 (0.007) | 0.0203 (0.008) | 1.44 (0.57) | 7.52 (3.6) | |
| VOI 3 | 0.240 (0.05) | 0.089 (0.02) | 0.0363 (0.010) | 0.0142 (0.004) | 2.02 (0.87) | 10.54 (5.3) | |
| VOI 3+ | 0.223 (0.05) | 0.089 (0.02) | 0.0349 (0.007) | 0.0157 (0.004) | 1.71 (0.64) | 8.79 (3.6) | |
| VOI 4 | 0.292 (0.09) | 0.104 (0.03) | 0.0353 (0.014) | 0.0166 (0.005) | 2.08 (1.26) | 10.83 (7.0) | |
| VOI 5 | 0.329 (0.07) | 0.140 (0.02) | 0.0326 (0.009) | 0.0208 (0.008) | 1.36 (0.63) | 7.09 (3.6) | |
| VOI 6 | 0.338 (0.06) | 0.162 (0.02) | 0.0321 (0.008) | 0.0230 (0.010) | 1.10 (0.51) | 5.67 (2.6) |
Fig. 1Average quantification bias due to perfusion changes. Changes with constant are shown on the left, and with variable on the right. Subject diagnosis is shown by data point shape and tracer influx rate () changes by color. a, b show the bias for Reference Logan DVR on the uninterrupted TAC (TAC120), c, d show the bias for Reference Logan DVR on the dual-time-window TAC with 60-min break (TACDTW60), and e, f show the bias for SUVR90
Fig. 2Average DVR bias from dual-time-window TACs when compared to the 120-min uninterrupted TAC (TAC120). The average relative bias for each region of interest is shown on the left panel, while the right panel shows the average DVR bias as function of DVR from TAC120. Diagnoses are indicated by data point shape and break length is indicated by color
Fig. 3Ref Logan DVR bias (left) and SUVR90 bias (right) due to scan protocol non-compliance resulting in delays on the start of the late time point scan (i.e., Part 2 of the DTW protocol). Average bias was calculated for subjects with the same diagnosis, indicated by symbol shape. Delay length is indicated by colors