Cargando…

Reproducibility of Quantitative Brain Imaging Using a PET-Only and a Combined PET/MR System

The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of migrating a quantitative brain imaging protocol from a positron emission tomography (PET)-only system to an integrated PET/MR system. Potential differences in both absolute radiotracer concentration as well as in the derived kinetic parameters...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lassen, Martin L., Muzik, Otto, Beyer, Thomas, Hacker, Marcus, Ladefoged, Claes Nøhr, Cal-González, Jacobo, Wadsak, Wolfgang, Rausch, Ivo, Langer, Oliver, Bauer, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5511842/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28769742
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00396
Descripción
Sumario:The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of migrating a quantitative brain imaging protocol from a positron emission tomography (PET)-only system to an integrated PET/MR system. Potential differences in both absolute radiotracer concentration as well as in the derived kinetic parameters as a function of PET system choice have been investigated. Five healthy volunteers underwent dynamic (R)-[(11)C]verapamil imaging on the same day using a GE-Advance (PET-only) and a Siemens Biograph mMR system (PET/MR). PET-emission data were reconstructed using a transmission-based attenuation correction (AC) map (PET-only), whereas a standard MR-DIXON as well as a low-dose CT AC map was applied to PET/MR emission data. Kinetic modeling based on arterial blood sampling was performed using a 1-tissue-2-rate constant compartment model, yielding kinetic parameters (K(1) and k(2)) and distribution volume (V(T)). Differences for parametric values obtained in the PET-only and the PET/MR systems were analyzed using a 2-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Comparison of DIXON-based AC (PET/MR) with emission data derived from the PET-only system revealed average inter-system differences of −33 ± 14% (p < 0.05) for the K(1) parameter and −19 ± 9% (p < 0.05) for k(2). Using a CT-based AC for PET/MR resulted in slightly lower systematic differences of −16 ± 18% for K(1) and −9 ± 10% for k(2). The average differences in V(T) were −18 ± 10% (p < 0.05) for DIXON- and −8 ± 13% for CT-based AC. Significant systematic differences were observed for kinetic parameters derived from emission data obtained from PET/MR and PET-only imaging due to different standard AC methods employed. Therefore, a transfer of imaging protocols from PET-only to PET/MR systems is not straightforward without application of proper correction methods. Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu, identifier 2013-001724-19