| Literature DB >> 35524902 |
Daniel Gillett1,2, Russell Senanayake3, James MacFarlane3, Merel van der Meulen3, Olympia Koulouri3, Andrew S Powlson3, Rosy Crawford4, Bethany Gillett5, Nick Bird4, Sarah Heard4, Angelos Kolias6, Richard Mannion6, Luigi Aloj4,7, Iosif A Mendichovszky4,7, Heok Cheow4, Waiel A Bashari3, Mark Gurnell3,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pituitary adenomas (PA) affect ~ 1:1200 of the population and can cause a wide range of symptoms due to hormone over-secretion, loss of normal pituitary gland function and/or compression of visual pathways, resulting in significantly impaired quality of life. Surgery is potentially curative if the location of the adenoma can be determined. However, standard structural (anatomical) imaging, in the form of MRI, is unable to locate all tumors, especially microadenomas (< 1 cm diameter). In such cases, functional imaging [11C-methionine PET/CT (Met-PET)] can facilitate tumor detection, although may be inconclusive when the adenoma is less metabolically active. We, therefore, explored whether subtraction imaging, comparing findings between two Met-PET scans with medical therapy-induced suppression of tumor activity in the intervening period, could increase confidence in adenoma localization. In addition, we assessed whether normalization to a reference region improved consistency of pituitary gland signal in healthy volunteers who underwent two Met-PET scans without medical suppression.Entities:
Keywords: 11C-methionine PET; Human pituitary tumors; Normalization; Subtraction imaging
Year: 2022 PMID: 35524902 PMCID: PMC9079199 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-022-00899-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res ISSN: 2191-219X Impact factor: 3.434
Fig. 1Registration steps. Step 1: MR2 is registered to MR1 using rigid registration. Step 2: PET1 is registered to MR1 using rigid registration. Step 3: PET2 is registered to MR2 [Co-Reg]. Step 4: PET2 [Co-Reg] is registered to PET1 [Co-Reg] and resampled into a matrix of the same size and shape
Fig. 2Normalization of PET images. ROI drawn around the reference region (cerebellum shown here) on one slice of the PET image. The PET images are divided by the mean signal from the reference ROI to create a ratio image known as standardized uptake value ratios (SUVrs)
Fig. 3Subtraction imaging techniques. Subtraction images are created by performing a voxel-wise subtraction of the second (suppressed) Met-PET scan from the first baseline Met-PET scan
Fig. 4Lateralization CNR. a Coronal plane of FSPGR MR image used to find the midline of pituitary stalk. b Sagittal plane used to find the center of the pituitary gland. c Illustration of volumes of interest used to find left [blue] and right [yellow] maximum signals
Fig. 5Box plots of maximum signal differences. Absolute percentage differences of the maximum signal in the pituitary gland, comparing pairs of images from healthy volunteers normalized to different regions
Fig. 6Contrast to noise for original Met-PET compared with both subtraction images. Linked box plots show the CNR using the SUVbw (original) images compared with the subtraction images generated from a the two SUVbw images and b the two SUVr [cerebellum] images
Fig. 7Findings in subject 4. The white arrows highlight the site of the suspected pituitary tumor on the baseline MR (MR1), the skewed tracer distribution of the baseline Met-PET (PET1) and the focal signal seen on the subtraction images. The black arrow highlights the variability of the Met-PET signal, and the yellow arrow highlights the effect of this on the subtraction image; the SUVbw values of the suppressed Met-PET are higher than those of the baseline, and therefore, the difference between them (seen in the SUVbwSub image) is not as pronounced as that of the normalized images (seen in the SUVrSub [cerebellum] image)