Comparison between a dual-time-window protocol and other simplified protocols for dynamic total-body (18)F-FDG PET imaging

PURPOSE: Efforts have been made both to avoid invasive blood sampling and to shorten the scan duration for dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. A total-body scanner, such as the uEXPLORER PET/CT, can relieve these challenges through the following features: First, the whole-body coverage allows for noninvasive input function from the aortic arteries; second, with a dramatic increase in sensitivity, image quality can still be maintained at a high level even with a shorter scan duration than usual. We implemented a dual-time-window (DTW) protocol for a dynamic total-body (18)F-FDG PET scan to obtain multiple kinetic parameters. The DTW protocol was then compared to several other simplified quantification methods for total-body FDG imaging that were proposed for conventional setup. METHODS: The research included 28 patient scans performed on an uEXPLORER PET/CT. By discarding the corresponding data in the middle of the existing full 60-min dynamic scan, the DTW protocol was simulated. Nonlinear fitting was used to estimate the missing data in the interval. The full input function was obtained from 15 subjects using a hybrid approach with a population-based image-derived input function. Quantification was carried out in three areas: the cerebral cortex, muscle, and tumor lesion. Micro- and macro-kinetic parameters for different scan durations were estimated by assuming an irreversible two-tissue compartment model. The visual performance of parametric images and region of interest-based quantification in several parameters were evaluated. Furthermore, simplified quantification methods (DTW, Patlak, fractional uptake ratio [FUR], and standardized uptake value [SUV]) were compared for similarity to the reference net influx rate K(i). RESULTS: K(i) and K(1) derived from the DTW protocol showed overall good consistency (P < 0.01) with the reference from the 60-min dynamic scan with 10-min early scan and 5-min late scan (K(i) correlation: 0.971, 0.990, and 0.990; K(1) correlation: 0.820, 0.940, and 0.975 in the cerebral cortex, muscle, and tumor lesion, respectively). Similar correlationss were found for other micro-parameters. The DTW protocol had the lowest bias relative to standard K(i) than any of the quantification methods, followed by FUR and Patlak. SUV had the weakest correlation with K(i). The whole-body K(i) and K(1) images generated by the DTW protocol were consistent with the reference parametric images. CONCLUSIONS: Using the DTW protocol, the dynamic total-body FDG scan time can be reduced to 15 min while obtaining accurate K(i) and K(1) quantification and acceptable visual performance in parametric images. However, the trade-off between quantification accuracy and protocol implementation feasibility must be considered in practice. We recommend that the DTW protocol be used when the clinical task requires reliable visual assessment or quantifying multiple micro-parameters; FUR with a hybrid input function may be a more feasible approach to quantifying regional metabolic rate with a known lesion position or organs of interest. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40658-022-00492-w.