Elizabeth J Li1, Benjamin A Spencer2, Jeffrey P Schmall3, Yasser Abdelhafez4, Ramsey D Badawi2,4, Guobao Wang4, Simon R Cherry2,4. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California Davis, Davis, California; lzli@ucdavis.edu. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California Davis, Davis, California. 3. United Imaging Healthcare America, Inc., Houston, Texas; and. 4. Department of Radiology, UC Davis Health, Sacramento, California.
Abstract
Quantitative kinetic modeling requires an input function. A noninvasive image-derived input function (IDIF) can be obtained from dynamic PET images. However, a robust IDIF location (e.g., aorta) may be far from a tissue of interest, particularly in total-body PET, introducing a time delay between the IDIF and the tissue. The standard practice of joint estimation (JE) of delay, along with model fitting, is computationally expensive. To improve the efficiency of delay correction for total-body PET parametric imaging, this study investigated the use of pulse timing methods to estimate and correct for delay. Methods: Simulation studies were performed with a range of delay values, frame lengths, and noise levels to test the tolerance of 2 pulse timing methods-leading edge (LE) and constant fraction discrimination and their thresholds. The methods were then applied to data from 21 subjects (14 healthy volunteers, 7 cancer patients) who underwent a 60-min dynamic total-body 18F-FDG PET acquisition. Region-of-interest kinetic analysis was performed and parametric images were generated to compare LE and JE methods of delay correction, as well as no delay correction. Results: Simulations demonstrated that a 10% LE threshold resulted in biases and SDs at tolerable levels for all noise levels tested, with 2-s frames. Pooled region-of-interest-based results (n = 154) showed strong agreement between LE (10% threshold) and JE methods in estimating delay (Pearson r = 0.96, P < 0.001) and the kinetic parameters vb (r = 0.96, P < 0.001), Ki (r = 1.00, P < 0.001), and K 1 (r = 0.97, P < 0.001). When tissues with minimal delay were excluded from pooled analyses, there were reductions in vb (69.4%) and K 1 (4.8%) when delay correction was not performed. Similar results were obtained for parametric images; additionally, lesion Ki contrast was improved overall with LE and JE delay correction compared with no delay correction and Patlak analysis. Conclusion: This study demonstrated the importance of delay correction in total-body PET. LE delay correction can be an efficient surrogate for JE, requiring a fraction of the computational time and allowing for rapid delay correction across more than 106 voxels in total-body PET datasets.
Quantitative kinetic modeling requires an input function. A noninvasive image-derived input function (IDIF) can be obtained from dynamic PET images. However, a robust IDIF location (e.g., aorta) may be far from a tissue of interest, particularly in total-body PET, introducing a time delay between the IDIF and the tissue. The standard practice of joint estimation (JE) of delay, along with model fitting, is computationally expensive. To improve the efficiency of delay correction for total-body PET parametric imaging, this study investigated the use of pulse timing methods to estimate and correct for delay. Methods: Simulation studies were performed with a range of delay values, frame lengths, and noise levels to test the tolerance of 2 pulse timing methods-leading edge (LE) and constant fraction discrimination and their thresholds. The methods were then applied to data from 21 subjects (14 healthy volunteers, 7 cancer patients) who underwent a 60-min dynamic total-body 18F-FDG PET acquisition. Region-of-interest kinetic analysis was performed and parametric images were generated to compare LE and JE methods of delay correction, as well as no delay correction. Results: Simulations demonstrated that a 10% LE threshold resulted in biases and SDs at tolerable levels for all noise levels tested, with 2-s frames. Pooled region-of-interest-based results (n = 154) showed strong agreement between LE (10% threshold) and JE methods in estimating delay (Pearson r = 0.96, P < 0.001) and the kinetic parameters vb (r = 0.96, P < 0.001), Ki (r = 1.00, P < 0.001), and K 1 (r = 0.97, P < 0.001). When tissues with minimal delay were excluded from pooled analyses, there were reductions in vb (69.4%) and K 1 (4.8%) when delay correction was not performed. Similar results were obtained for parametric images; additionally, lesion Ki contrast was improved overall with LE and JE delay correction compared with no delay correction and Patlak analysis. Conclusion: This study demonstrated the importance of delay correction in total-body PET. LE delay correction can be an efficient surrogate for JE, requiring a fraction of the computational time and allowing for rapid delay correction across more than 106 voxels in total-body PET datasets.
Authors: Simon R Cherry; Ramsey D Badawi; Joel S Karp; William W Moses; Pat Price; Terry Jones Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: A A Lammertsma; V J Cunningham; M P Deiber; J D Heather; P M Bloomfield; J Nutt; R S Frackowiak; T Jones Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 1990-09 Impact factor: 6.200
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
Authors: H Iida; I Kanno; A Takahashi; S Miura; M Murakami; K Takahashi; Y Ono; F Shishido; A Inugami; N Tomura Journal: Circulation Date: 1988-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Tao Feng; Yizhang Zhao; Hongcheng Shi; Hongdi Li; Xuezhu Zhang; Guobao Wang; Patricia M Price; Ramsey D Badawi; Simon R Cherry; Terry Jones Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Xuezhu Zhang; Simon R Cherry; Zhaoheng Xie; Hongcheng Shi; Ramsey D Badawi; Jinyi Qi Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Quinn Kwan-Tai Ng; Elizabeth Katherine Anna Triumbari; Negar Omidvari; Simon R Cherry; Ramsey D Badawi; Lorenzo Nardo Journal: Semin Nucl Med Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 4.802