BACKGROUND: Quantification of dynamic and static parameters extracted from 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[18F]-fluoro-L-phenylalanine (18F-DOPA, FDOPA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) plays a critical role for glioma assessment. The objective of the present study was to investigate the impact of point-spread function (PSF) reconstruction on these quantitative parameters. METHODS: Fourteen patients with untreated gliomas and investigated with FDOPA PET/CT were analyzed. The distribution of the 14 cases was as follows: 6 astrocytomas-isocitrate dehydrogenase-mutant; 2 oligodendrogliomas/1p19q-codeleted-isocitrate dehydrogenase-mutant; and 6 isocitrate dehydrogenase-wild-type glioblastomas. A 0-20-min dynamic images (8×15, 2×30, 2×60, and 3×300 s post-injection) and a 0-20-min static image were reconstructed with and without PSF. Tumoral volumes-of-interest were generated on all of the PET series and the background volumes-of-interest were generated on the 0-20-min static image with and without PSF. Static parameters (SUVmax and SUVmean) of the tumoral and the background volumes-of-interest and kinetic parameters (K1 and k2) of the tumoral volumes-of-interest extracted from using full kinetic analysis were provided. PSF and non-PSF quantitative parameters values were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-three tumor volumes-of-interest and 14 background volumes-of-interest were analyzed. PSF images provided higher tumor SUVmax than non-PSF images for 23/33 VOIs [median SUVmax =3.0 (range, 1.4-10.2) with PSF vs. 2.7 (range, 1.4-9.1) without PSF; P<0.001] and higher tumor SUVmean for 13/33 volumes-of-interest [median SUVmean =2.0 (range, 0.8-7.6) with PSF vs. 2.0 (range, 0.8-7.4) without PSF; P=0.002]. K1 and k2 were significantly lower with PSF than without PSF [respectively median K1 =0.077 mL/ccm/min (range, 0.043-0.445 mL/ccm/min) with PSF vs. 0.101 mL/ccm/min (range, 0.055-0.578 mL/ccm/min) without PSF; P<0.001 and median k2 =0.070 min-1 (range, 0.025-0.146 min-1) with PSF vs. 0.081 min-1 (range, 0.027-0.180 min-1) without PSF; P<0.001]. Background SUVmax and SUVmean were statistically unaffected [respectively median SUVmax =1.7 (range, 1.3-2.0) with PSF vs. 1.7 (range, 1.3-1.9) without PSF; P=0.346 and median SUVmean =1.5 (range, 1.0-1.8) with PSF vs. 1.5 (range, 1.0-1.7) without PSF; P=0.371]. CONCLUSIONS: The present study confirms that PSF significantly increases tumor activity concentrations measured on PET images. PSF algorithms for quantitative PET/CT analysis should be used with caution, especially for quantification of kinetic parameters. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Quantification of dynamic and static parameters extracted from 3,4-dihydroxy-6-[18F]-fluoro-L-phenylalanine (18F-DOPA, FDOPA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) plays a critical role for glioma assessment. The objective of the present study was to investigate the impact of point-spread function (PSF) reconstruction on these quantitative parameters. METHODS: Fourteen patients with untreated gliomas and investigated with FDOPA PET/CT were analyzed. The distribution of the 14 cases was as follows: 6 astrocytomas-isocitrate dehydrogenase-mutant; 2 oligodendrogliomas/1p19q-codeleted-isocitrate dehydrogenase-mutant; and 6 isocitrate dehydrogenase-wild-type glioblastomas. A 0-20-min dynamic images (8×15, 2×30, 2×60, and 3×300 s post-injection) and a 0-20-min static image were reconstructed with and without PSF. Tumoral volumes-of-interest were generated on all of the PET series and the background volumes-of-interest were generated on the 0-20-min static image with and without PSF. Static parameters (SUVmax and SUVmean) of the tumoral and the background volumes-of-interest and kinetic parameters (K1 and k2) of the tumoral volumes-of-interest extracted from using full kinetic analysis were provided. PSF and non-PSF quantitative parameters values were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-three tumor volumes-of-interest and 14 background volumes-of-interest were analyzed. PSF images provided higher tumor SUVmax than non-PSF images for 23/33 VOIs [median SUVmax =3.0 (range, 1.4-10.2) with PSF vs. 2.7 (range, 1.4-9.1) without PSF; P<0.001] and higher tumor SUVmean for 13/33 volumes-of-interest [median SUVmean =2.0 (range, 0.8-7.6) with PSF vs. 2.0 (range, 0.8-7.4) without PSF; P=0.002]. K1 and k2 were significantly lower with PSF than without PSF [respectively median K1 =0.077 mL/ccm/min (range, 0.043-0.445 mL/ccm/min) with PSF vs. 0.101 mL/ccm/min (range, 0.055-0.578 mL/ccm/min) without PSF; P<0.001 and median k2 =0.070 min-1 (range, 0.025-0.146 min-1) with PSF vs. 0.081 min-1 (range, 0.027-0.180 min-1) without PSF; P<0.001]. Background SUVmax and SUVmean were statistically unaffected [respectively median SUVmax =1.7 (range, 1.3-2.0) with PSF vs. 1.7 (range, 1.3-1.9) without PSF; P=0.346 and median SUVmean =1.5 (range, 1.0-1.8) with PSF vs. 1.5 (range, 1.0-1.7) without PSF; P=0.371]. CONCLUSIONS: The present study confirms that PSF significantly increases tumor activity concentrations measured on PET images. PSF algorithms for quantitative PET/CT analysis should be used with caution, especially for quantification of kinetic parameters. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Thomas Linsenmann; Camelia Maria Monoranu; Samuel Samnick; Andreas K Buck; Christina Bluemel; Johannes Czernin; Almuth F Kessler; Gyoergy A Homola; Ralf-Ingo Ernestus; Mario Löhr; Ken Herrmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Patsuree Cheebsumon; Maqsood Yaqub; Floris H P van Velden; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-08-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: S C Huang; J R Barrio; D C Yu; B Chen; S Grafton; W P Melega; J M Hoffman; N Satyamurthy; J C Mazziotta; M E Phelps Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 1991-06 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Elena Prieto; Josep M Martí-Climent; Verónica Morán; Lidia Sancho; Benigno Barbés; Javier Arbizu; Jose A Richter Journal: Phys Med Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Ian Law; Nathalie L Albert; Javier Arbizu; Ronald Boellaard; Alexander Drzezga; Norbert Galldiks; Christian la Fougère; Karl-Josef Langen; Egesta Lopci; Val Lowe; Jonathan McConathy; Harald H Quick; Bernhard Sattler; David M Schuster; Jörg-Christian Tonn; Michael Weller Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Antoine Girard; Pierre-Jean Le Reste; Alice Metais; Nibras Chaboub; Anne Devillers; Hervé Saint-Jalmes; Florence Le Jeune; Xavier Palard-Novello Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2021-07-09