| Literature DB >> 34279735 |
Christina P W Cox1, Daniëlle M E van Assema2, Frederik A Verburg2, Tessa Brabander2, Mark Konijnenberg2, Marcel Segbers2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in children is still expanding. Dedicated paediatric dosage regimens are needed to keep the radiation dose as low as reasonably achievable and reduce the risk of radiation-induced carcinogenesis. The aim of this study is to investigate the relation between patient-dependent parameters and [18F]FDG PET image quality in order to propose a dedicated paediatric dose regimen.Entities:
Keywords: Body weight; Dose optimization; Image quality; PET; Patient size; [18F]FDG activity
Year: 2021 PMID: 34279735 PMCID: PMC8289942 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-021-00812-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res ISSN: 2191-219X Impact factor: 3.138
Paediatric patient-dependent parameters and SUV values
| Parameters | Mean ± SD | Range | Median |
|---|---|---|---|
| Body weight (kg) | 45.9 ± 19.9 | 3.8–96.0 | 46.5 |
| Body height (m) | 1.49 ± 0.26 | 0.57–1.86 | 1.58 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 19.4 ± 4.3 | 11.7–33.9 | 18.8 |
| BWH (kg/m) | 29.6 ± 9.9 | 6.7–55.2 | 29.6 |
| BSA (m2) | 1.5 ± 0.5 | 0.3–2.5 | 1.7 |
Fig. 1Scatterplots of the SNR liver (a) and the SNRnorm liver (b) against age
Fig. 2Curve fitting to determine the fit parameters for a linear and nonlinear dosage regimen of the mean SNRnorm liver ([MBq·min)−1/2] versus body weight (a), body height (b), BMI (c), BWH (e) and BSA (e). The dashed lines represent the 95% confidence intervals of the fits
Fits of SNRnorm liver with the patient-dependent parameters
| Patient-dependent parameters | SNRnorm liver, fit = α p−0.5 | SNRnorm liver, fit = α p−d | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ΔAICc | AIC% | ||||||||
| Body weight (kg) | 2.51 | 0.80 | - | 2.23 | 0.46 | 0.81 | - | 1.86 | 23.8 vs 71.20 |
| Body height (m) | 0.51 | 0.47 | < 0.001 | 0.62 | 1.15 | 0.78 | 0.046 | 88.44 | < 0.01 vs > 99.99 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 1.82 | 0.27 | < 0.001 | 13.26 | 1.19 | 0.41 | > 0.999 | 18.29 | 0.01 vs 99.99 |
| BWH (kg/m) | 2.20 | 0.67 | < 0.001 | 4.73 | 0.74 | 0.78 | > 0.999 | 33.61 | < 0.01 vs > 99.99 |
| BSA (m2) | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.001 | 0.51 | 0.64 | 0.81 | 0.085 | 23.89 | < 0.01 vs > 99.99 |
Fig. 3Comparison between SNRnorm liver fits that corresponds with the proposed nonlinear dosage regimen (parameter d fixed to 0.46) and a quadratic dosage regimen (parameter d fixed to 1) for children (a), adults (b) and both groups (c). The dashed lines represent the 95% confidence intervals of the fits
Fig. 4Comparison of [18F]FDG dosage regimens. Current study, EANM, NACG and the proposed dose regimen