Jing Lv1,2,3, Hongyan Yin1,2,3, Haojun Yu1,2,3, Guobing Liu1,2,3, Hongcheng Shi4,5,6. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. 2. Nuclear Medicine Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. 3. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, 200032, China. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. shi.hongcheng@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 5. Nuclear Medicine Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. shi.hongcheng@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 6. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, 200032, China. shi.hongcheng@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of ultralow-activity 18F-FDG total-body dynamic PET imaging for clinical practice in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Eight of 18 patients were randomly injected with 18F-FDG with full activity (3.7 MBq/kg) for total-body dynamic PET imaging, while 10 received one-tenth activity (0.37 MBq/kg). The generated time-to-activity curves (TACs) according to the regions of interest (ROIs) were processed by PMOD through standard FDG two-tissue compartment model fitting. The kinetic constant rates (K1, K2, K3, and Ki), radiation dose, prompt counts, and data storage size were analysed between the full- and ultralow-activity groups. The SUVmax-Tumour/SUVmax-Liver and SUVmax-Tumour/SUVmax-Muscle on static PET images were also assessed. RESULTS: Each of the fitted models has a satisfactory goodness-of-fit with R2 greater than 0.9 except 3 (3/234) in ultralow-activity group, where one in pancreas (R2 = 0.851), another one in muscle (R2 = 0.868), and the third one in bone marrow (R2 = 0.895). All the fitted models in the full-activity group had a better goodness-of-fit than those in the ultralow-activity group. However, no significant differences were found in any of the kinetic metrics or image quality between the two groups except in the reduction of radiation dose and data storage size. CONCLUSIONS: The 10 × reduction of injected 18F-FDG could achieve comparable kinetic metrics and T/N ratios by total-body dynamic PET imaging in lung adenocarcinoma patients. Ultralow-activity total-body PET imaging is feasible for clinical practice in oncological patients without obesity, especially in dynamic PET scanning.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of ultralow-activity 18F-FDG total-body dynamic PET imaging for clinical practice in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Eight of 18 patients were randomly injected with 18F-FDG with full activity (3.7 MBq/kg) for total-body dynamic PET imaging, while 10 received one-tenth activity (0.37 MBq/kg). The generated time-to-activity curves (TACs) according to the regions of interest (ROIs) were processed by PMOD through standard FDG two-tissue compartment model fitting. The kinetic constant rates (K1, K2, K3, and Ki), radiation dose, prompt counts, and data storage size were analysed between the full- and ultralow-activity groups. The SUVmax-Tumour/SUVmax-Liver and SUVmax-Tumour/SUVmax-Muscle on static PET images were also assessed. RESULTS: Each of the fitted models has a satisfactory goodness-of-fit with R2 greater than 0.9 except 3 (3/234) in ultralow-activity group, where one in pancreas (R2 = 0.851), another one in muscle (R2 = 0.868), and the third one in bone marrow (R2 = 0.895). All the fitted models in the full-activity group had a better goodness-of-fit than those in the ultralow-activity group. However, no significant differences were found in any of the kinetic metrics or image quality between the two groups except in the reduction of radiation dose and data storage size. CONCLUSIONS: The 10 × reduction of injected 18F-FDG could achieve comparable kinetic metrics and T/N ratios by total-body dynamic PET imaging in lung adenocarcinoma patients. Ultralow-activity total-body PET imaging is feasible for clinical practice in oncological patients without obesity, especially in dynamic PET scanning.
Authors: Simon R Cherry; Terry Jones; Joel S Karp; Jinyi Qi; William W Moses; Ramsey D Badawi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: James W Fletcher; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Heloisa P Soares; Barry A Siegel; Val J Lowe; Gary H Lyman; R Edward Coleman; Richard Wahl; John Christopher Paschold; Norbert Avril; Lawrence H Einhorn; W Warren Suh; David Samson; Dominique Delbeke; Mark Gorman; Anthony F Shields Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Roberto Delgado-Bolton; Wim J G Oyen; Francesco Giammarile; Klaus Tatsch; Wolfgang Eschner; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Sally F Barrington; Lucy C Pike; Wolfgang A Weber; Sigrid Stroobants; Dominique Delbeke; Kevin J Donohoe; Scott Holbrook; Michael M Graham; Giorgio Testanera; Otto S Hoekstra; Josee Zijlstra; Eric Visser; Corneline J Hoekstra; Jan Pruim; Antoon Willemsen; Bertjan Arends; Jörg Kotzerke; Andreas Bockisch; Thomas Beyer; Arturo Chiti; Bernd J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Alessandro Broccoli; Cristina Nanni; Alberta Cappelli; Francesco Bacci; Alessandro Gasbarrini; Elena Tabacchi; Carlo Piovani; Lisa Argnani; Riccardo Ghermandi; Elena Sabattini; Rita Golfieri; Stefano Fanti; Pier Luigi Zinzani Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Karen D Bosch; Sugama Chicklore; Gary J Cook; Andrew R Davies; Mark Kelly; James A Gossage; Cara R Baker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-08-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ian Alberts; Jan-Niklas Hünermund; George Prenosil; Clemens Mingels; Karl Peter Bohn; Marco Viscione; Hasan Sari; Bernd Vollnberg; Kuangyu Shi; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Axel Rominger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 9.236