| Literature DB >> 34823506 |
Niloofar Fasaeiyan1,2, M Soltani3,4,5,6, Farshad Moradi Kashkooli1, Erfan Taatizadeh1,7, Arman Rahmim7,8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We present computational modeling of positron emission tomography radiotracer uptake with consideration of blood flow and interstitial fluid flow, performing spatiotemporally-coupled modeling of uptake and integrating the microvasculature. In our mathematical modeling, the uptake of fluorodeoxyglucose F-18 (FDG) was simulated based on the Convection-Diffusion-Reaction equation given its high accuracy and reliability in modeling of transport phenomena. In the proposed model, blood flow and interstitial flow are solved simultaneously to calculate interstitial pressure and velocity distribution inside cancer and normal tissues. As a result, the spatiotemporal distribution of the FDG tracer is calculated based on velocity and pressure distributions in both kinds of tissues.Entities:
Keywords: Convection–Diffusion-Reaction modeling; FDG radiotracer; Microvascular network; Positron Emission Tomography (PET); Solid tumor
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34823506 PMCID: PMC8620574 DOI: 10.1186/s12896-021-00725-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Biotechnol ISSN: 1472-6750 Impact factor: 2.563
Fig. 1Distribution of blood pressure, IFP, and IFV: a intravascular (blood) pressure, b IFP within normal and tumor tissues, c IFV in both normal and tumor tissues
Fig. 2Spatiotemporal distribution of FDG radiotracer including extracellular (column 1), intracellular (column 2), phosphorylated intracellular (column 3), and total (column 4) concentrations, shown at 6 different time frames. Different concentrations are normalized to maximum value of total concentration. The same color bar is used for all plots
The median value of different concentrations at each time points within or outside of the tumor
| Time [s] | Tissue type | Ci (mol/m3) | Ce (mol/m3) | Cm(mol/m3) | Ctotal(mol/m3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60 | Tumor | 23.1867 | 0.2301 | 1051.0168 | 1074.4336 |
| Normal | 2.0102 | 0.01781 | 108.3105 | 110.3385 | |
| 120 | Tumor | 106.2470 | 2.10696 | 2587.4268 | 2695.7808 |
| Normal | 12.0157 | 0.2142 | 338.3387 | 350.5686 | |
| 180 | Tumor | 235.5401 | 7.51638 | 3040.0453 | 3283.1018 |
| Normal | 32.3107 | 0.9013 | 532.7309 | 565.9429 | |
| 600 | Tumor | 856.0214 | 140.0836 | 2243.2288 | 3239.3339 |
| Normal | 216.5706 | 29.0337 | 778.7145 | 1024.3189 | |
| 1800 | Tumor | 1056.0064 | 798.8236 | 1412.9760 | 3267.8060 |
| Normal | 430.3229 | 254.8346 | 686.42605 | 1371.5835 | |
| 3600 | Tumor | 829.3591 | 1689.3651 | 1055.1704 | 3573.8946 |
| Normal | 416.8322 | 667.4632 | 570.2119 | 1654.5072 |
Fig. 3The location of points and cutlines which were used to calculate the average compartmental concentration values of FDG tracer
Fig. 4The averaged FDG tracer compartmental concentration distribution versus time for point 1
Fig. 5The temporal evolution of FDG tracer uptake in different compartments along cutline 1
Fig. 6Comparison of the results of current study with two experimental results [21] and numerical results [17]
Summary of parameters used in solute transport modeling
| Parameter | Symbol [unit] | Value | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effective diffusion coefficient | 0.37e−9 (Normal Tissue) 2.5e−3 (Tumor Tissue) | [ | |
| Coefficient of microvascular’s permeability | P [m/s] | 3.75E−7 (Normal) 3.00E−6 (Tumor) | [ |
| Coefficient of filtration reflection | 0.9 | [ | |
| Constant transport rate | 8.2e−4 (Normal Tissue) | [ | |
| Constant transport rate | 6.7e−4 (Normal Tissue) | [ | |
| Constant transport rate | 5.3e−4 | [ |
Fig. 7The steps were followed to improve quality of the input color image a and make it as the computational domain b for FEM analysis. Reproduced with permission from [59]
Fig. 8The variation of plasma arterial concentration of FDG tracer in blood (C) versus time
The material properties of the tumor and normal tissues [6, 17]
| Parameter | Symbol [unit] | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Plasma osmotic pressure | 20 | |
| Interstitial fluid osmotic pressure | 10 (Normal tissue) 15 (Tumor tissue) | |
| Average osmotic reflection coefficient | 0.91 (Normal tissue) 0.82 (Tumor tissue) | |
| Hydraulic conductivity of the microvascular wall | 0.36e−7 (Normal tissue) 2.8e−7 (Tumor tissue) | |
| Interstitial hydraulic conductivity | 6.41e−15 (Normal tissue) 30.0e−15 (Tumor tissue) | |
| Lymphatic filtration coefficient | 1.33e−5 (Normal tissue) 0 (Tumor tissue) | |
| Hydrostatic pressure of lymphatic vessels | PL [Pa] | 0 |
Fig. 9A zoomed-in view of the mesh element structure
Fig. 10Computational domain and boundary conditions for intravascular flow