| Literature DB >> 35412053 |
David Kersting1,2, Miriam Sraieb3,4, Robert Seifert3,4,5, Pedro Fragoso Costa3,4, Sandra Kazek3,4, Lukas Kessler3,4, Lale Umutlu4,6, Wolfgang Peter Fendler3,4, Walter Jentzen3,4, Ken Herrmann3,4, Florian Büther5, Michael Nader3,4, Christoph Rischpler3,4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The determination of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is decisive for a variety of clinical issues, for example, to monitor the renal function in radionuclide therapy patients. Renal scintigraphy using glomerularly filtered tracers allows combined acquisition of renograms and GFR estimation but requires repeated blood sampling for several hours. In contrast, dynamic PET imaging using the glomerularly filtered tracer [68Ga]Ga-DOTA bears the potential to non-invasively estimate the GFR by compartmental kinetic modelling. Here, we report the, to our knowledge, first comparison of human renal dynamic [68Ga]Ga-DOTA PET imaging in comparison to renal scintigraphy and compare PET-derived to serum creatinine-derived GFR measurements.Entities:
Keywords: Compartmental kinetic modelling; DOTA PET; Dynamic PET; Glomerular filtration rate; Renal PET/CT
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35412053 PMCID: PMC9002049 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-022-05781-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging ISSN: 1619-7070 Impact factor: 10.057
Patient characteristics including administered activities for PET and scintigraphy imaging and blood test results
| Patient ID | Sex | Age | Body surface area (m2) | Radionuclide therapy | Serum creatinine (mg/dl) | HCT | Activity PET (MBq) | Scintigraphy tracer | Activity scintigraphy (MBq) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | f | 53 | 1.88 | DOTATOC | 0.89 | 0.39 | 137 | MAG3 | 75 |
| 2 | m | 72 | 2.08 | DOTATOC | 1.41 | 0.32 | 109 | DTPA | 148 |
| 3 | f | 58 | 1.56 | DOTATOC | 0.60 | 0.31 | 112 | MAG3 | 74 |
| 4 | m | 78 | 1.91 | DOTATOC | 0.85 | 0.40 | 102 | DTPA | 141 |
| 5 | m | 67 | 1.98 | DOTATOC | 0.99 | 0.39 | 79 | DTPA | 155 |
| 6 | m | 67 | 2.18 | DOTATOC | 1.26 | 0.35 | 94 | DTPA | 152 |
| 7 | m | 70 | 1.81 | PSMA | 0.92 | 0.35 | 112 | DTPA | 130 |
| 8 | m | 46 | 2.25 | DOTATOC | 0.90 | 0.40 | 120 | MAG3 | 66 |
| 9 | m | 65 | 1.98 | PSMA | 0.88 | 0.26 | 113 | DTPA | 135 |
| 10 | m | 79 | 1.95 | PSMA | 1.15 | 0.38 | 120 | MAG3 | 69 |
| 11 | m | 72 | 1.77 | PSMA | 0.66 | 0.29 | 119 | DTPA | 159 |
| 12 | m | 79 | 1.96 | PSMA | 0.95 | 0.29 | 125 | DTPA | 136 |
HCT: haematocrit
Fig. 1A Example of the segmentation of the functional renal cortex (frontal view of first PET frame). B Schematic representation of the single-compartmental tracer kinetic model
Fig. 2Maximum intensity projection (frontal view) of a left-sided abdominal aortic aneurysm (solid black arrow) and a cyst at the lower pole of the right kidney (dashed black arrow)
Visual interpretation results
| Patient ID | Interval between scintigraphy and PET (d) | PET result | Scintigraphy result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | − 57 | No urinary obstruction | No urinary obstruction |
| 2 | − 113 | No urinary obstruction | No urinary obstruction |
| 3 | − 3 | No urinary obstruction | No urinary obstruction |
| 4 | 46 | No urinary obstruction | No urinary obstruction |
| 5 | 40 | No urinary obstruction | No urinary obstruction |
| 6 | 84 | No urinary obstruction | No urinary obstruction |
| 7 | 21 | No urinary obstruction | No urinary obstruction |
| 8 | 85 | No urinary obstruction | No urinary obstruction |
| 9 | 29 | Both-sided urinary obstruction | Both-sided urinary obstruction |
| 10 | − 71 | Right-sided urinary obstruction | Right-sided urinary obstruction |
| 11 | 126 | No urinary obstruction | No urinary obstruction |
| 12 | 15 | Both-sided urinary obstruction | Both-sided urinary obstruction |
Results of the visual interpretation of dynamic [Ga]Ga-DOTA PET data (images and TACs) and renal scintigraphy data (images and renograms)
Fig. 3Maximum intensity projections (frontal view) of dynamic PET images (for visualization, PET data were resampled and reconstructed into 12 frames of 30 s and, thereafter, 16 frames of 90 s, from left to right). A Normal result (patient ID #8). B Pathological result (right-sided urinary obstruction, patient ID #12)
Fig. 4A and B PET-derived renal cortical TACs. C and D Scintigraphy-derived renograms. A and C Normal result (patient ID #8). B and D Pathological result (right-sided urinary obstruction, patient ID #12)
Fig. 5Exemplary presentation of model curves (patient ID #7, left kidney) showing the measured PET data and the determined fit functions based on the 1-tissue compartment model using the complete 30-min data set and the 30-min data set without minutes 2 to 10. AC: activity concentration
Goodness-of-fit kinetic modelling
| Patient ID | Akaike information criterion | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Left | Right | Left | Right | |||||||||||||
| M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | |
| 1 | 4.83 | 2.55 | 2.99 | 1.18 | 5.70 | 3.21 | 5.28 | 2.24 | 126.68 | 45.94 | 72.83 | 9.50 | 139.70 | 57.48 | 108.75 | 29.67 |
| 2 | 6.10 | 1.50 | 4.94 | 1.51 | 6.70 | 2.58 | 5.70 | 3.43 | 144.89 | 22.49 | 14.52 | 17.44 | 152.24 | 47.51 | 113.51 | 41.66 |
| 3 | 6.48 | 1.21 | 6.11 | 1.78 | 4.15 | 0.67 | 3.93 | 1.00 | 149.60 | 13.41 | 117.84 | 22.06 | 114.95 | − 13.26 | 90.02 | 4.79 |
| 4 | 4.29 | 2.20 | 6.76 | 6.94 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 1.00 | 0.91 | 46.90 | 20.63 | 41.82 | 30.95 | 2.59 | 5.69 | 5.56 | 14.66 |
| 5 | - | - | - | - | 4.75 | 2.27 | 5.35 | 1.16 | - | - | - | - | 49.86 | 21.20 | 37.37 | 16.62 |
| 6 | 8.24 | 7.36 | 11.68 | 19.39 | 8.28 | 7.42 | 12.98 | 22.95 | 65.86 | 42.40 | 52.20 | 39.17 | 65.98 | 42.54 | 54.21 | 40.52 |
| 7 | 3.47 | 0.20 | 4.02 | 0.27 | 5.66 | 1.83 | 6.09 | 2.62 | 100.84 | − 67.77 | 91.52 | -34.96 | 139.08 | 31.99 | 117.74 | 33.65 |
| 8 | 4.32 | 1.40 | 2.57 | 1.11 | 6.28 | 1.62 | 4.66 | 1.91 | 118.38 | 19.89 | 63.38 | 7.71 | 147.19 | 26.46 | 100.82 | 24.13 |
| 9 | 2.73 | 2.46 | 2.39 | 2.99 | 4.40 | 2.73 | 3.35 | 3.07 | 68.12 | 38.96 | 50.81 | 35.33 | 98.71 | 42.90 | 69.08 | 36.13 |
| 10 | 2.32 | 2.83 | 2.62 | 3.77 | 2.95 | 3.06 | 3.17 | 4.23 | 62.93 | 44.35 | 61.63 | 41.84 | 79.60 | 47.29 | 73.16 | 45.04 |
| 11 | 2.65 | 0.42 | 3.14 | 0.48 | 2,43 | 0.36 | 2.78 | 0.44 | 79.97 | − 33.77 | 75.98 | − 17.16 | 73.07 | − 41.19 | 68.37 | − 20.24 |
| 12 | 8.90 | 0.55 | 8.06 | 0.55 | 10.06 | 8.12 | 1.09 | 1.27 | 174.42 | − 22.40 | 135.35 | − 13.40 | 183.93 | 99.06 | 9.58 | 11.95 |
χ2 and Akaike information criterion for the different kinetic modelling approaches; M1: complete 30-min data set (corresponding to GFRPET-30); M2: 30-min data set without minutes 2 to 10 (corresponding to GFRPET-30_w/o2to10); M3: reduced 15-min data set (corresponding to GFRPET-15); M4: 15-min data set without minutes 2 to 10 (corresponding to GFRPET-15_w/o2to10)
GFR results
| Patient ID | GFRCKD-EPI (ml/min) | GFRPET-30 (ml/min) | GFRPET-30_w/o2to10 (ml/min) | GFRPET-15 (ml/min) | GFRPET-15_w/o2to10 (ml/min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 80.6 | 72.9 | 71.0 | 68.8 | 68.9 |
| 2 | 59.4 | 46.9 | 43.7 | 45.2 | 43.3 |
| 3 | 90.9 | 82.0 | 76.6 | 79.3 | 75.0 |
| 4 | 92.2 | 89.1 | 73.7 | 89.4 | 72.0 |
| 5 | 89.8 | 84.1 | 63.7 | 88.4 | 64.9 |
| 6 | 73.8 | 85.5 | 63.7 | 88.4 | 74.3 |
| 7 | 87.9 | 84.0 | 88.6 | 83.0 | 87.9 |
| 8 | 132.8 | 128.9 | 107.6 | 122.8 | 104.9 |
| 9 | 103.1 | 56.2 | 62.3 | 61.1 | 62.8 |
| 10 | 67.9 | 41.3 | 49.0 | 41.4 | 49.2 |
| 11 | 98.8 | 91.7 | 79.6 | 90.7 | 79.9 |
| 12 | 85.9 | 70.3 | 52.0 | 74.4 | 66.6 |
Serum creatinine and PET-derived GFR results
Fig. 6Correlation and agreement analyses for all patients (n = 12). A Scatter plot for GFRPET-30 and GFRPET-30_w/o2to10 versus GFRCKD. B Bland–Altman plot for GFRPET-30 versus GFRCKD. C Bland–Altman plot for GFRPET-30_w/o2to10 versus GFRCKD. D Scatter plot for GFRPET-15 and GFRPET-15_w/o2to10 versus GFRCKD. E Bland–Altman plot for GFRPET-15 versus GFRCKD. F Bland–Altman plot for GFRPET-15_w/o2to10 versus GFRCKD. G Scatter plot for GFRPET-15 versus GFRPET-30 and GFRPET-15_w/o2to10 versus GFRPET-30_w/o2to10. H Bland–Altman plot for GFRPET-15 versus GFRPET-30. I Bland–Altman plot for GFRPET-15_w/o2to10 versus GFRPET-30_w/o2to10
Fig. 7Correlation and agreement analyses for patients with undisturbed urinary efflux (n = 9). A Scatter plot for GFRPET-30 and GFRPET-30_w/o2to10 versus GFRCKD. B Bland–Altman plot for GFRPET-30 versus GFRCKD. C Bland–Altman plot for GFRPET-30_w/o2to10 versus GFRCKD. D Scatter plot for GFRPET-15 and GFRPET-15_w/o2to10 versus GFRCKD. E Bland–Altman plot for GFRPET-15 versus GFRCKD. F Bland–Altman plot for GFRPET-15_w/o2to10 versus GFRCKD. G Scatter plot for GFRPET-15 versus GFRPET-30 and GFRPET-15_w/o2to10 versus GFRPET-30_w/o2to10. H Bland–Altman plot for GFRPET-15 versus GFRPET-30. I Bland–Altman plot for GFRPET-15_w/o2to10 versus GFRPET-30_w/o2to10