HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JNM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sundaram, S. K. Articles by Bacharach, S. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sundaram, S. K. Articles by Bacharach, S. L.

Simplified Kinetic Analysis of Tumor ¹⁸F-FDG Uptake: A Dynamic Approach

¹ National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
² Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel

Standardized uptake value (SUV) is often used to quantify ¹⁸F-FDG tumor use. Although useful, SUV suffers from known quantitative inaccuracies. Simplified kinetic analysis (SKA) methods have been proposed to overcome the shortcomings of SUV. Most SKA methods rely on a single time point (SKA-S), not on tumor uptake rate. We describe a hybrid between Patlak analysis and existing SKA-S methods, using multiple time points (SKA-M) but reduced imaging time and without measurement of an input function. We compared SKA-M with a published SKA-S method and with Patlak analysis. Methods: Twenty-seven dynamic ¹⁸F-FDG scans were performed on 11 cancer patients. A population-based ¹⁸F-FDG input function was generated from an independent patient population. SKA-M was calculated using this population input function and either a short, late, dynamic acquisition over the tumor (starting 25–35 min after injection and ending 55 min after injection) or dynamic imaging 10 or 25 min to 55 min after injection but using only every second or third time point, to permit a 2- or 3-field-of-view study. SKA-S was also calculated. Both SKA-M and SKA-S were compared with the gold standard, Patlak analysis. Results: Both SKA-M (1 field of view) and SKA-S correlated well with Patlak slope (r > 0.99, P < 0.001, and r = 0.96, P < 0.001, respectively), as did multilevel SKA-M (r > 0.99 and P < 0.001 for both). Mean values of SKA-M (25-min start time) and SKA-S were statistically different from Patlak analysis (P < 0.001 and P < 0.04, respectively). One-level SKA-M differed from the Patlak influx constant by only –1.0% ± 1.4%, whereas SKA-S differed by 15.1% ± 3.9%. With 1-level SKA-M, only 2 of 27 studies differed from K_i by more than 20%, whereas with SKA-S, 10 of 27 studies differed by more than 20% from K_i. Conclusion: Both SKA-M and SKA-S compared well with Patlak analysis. SKA-M (1 or multiple levels) had lower variability and bias than did SKA-S, compared with Patlak analysis. SKA-M may be preferred over SUV or SKA-S when a large unmetabolized ¹⁸F-FDG fraction is expected and 1–3 fields of view are sufficient.

Key Words: ¹⁸F-FDG • Patlak • standardized uptake value

Related articles in JNM:

THIS MONTH IN JNM

JNM 2004 45: 8A-9A. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Schroeder, M. F. Vidal Melo, G. Musch, R. S. Harris, J. G. Venegas, and T. Winkler Image-Derived Input Function for Assessment of 18F-FDG Uptake by the Inflamed Lung J. Nucl. Med., November 1, 2007; 48(11): 1889 - 1896. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Soret, S. L. Bacharach, and I. Buvat Partial-Volume Effect in PET Tumor Imaging J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2007; 48(6): 932 - 945. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. K. Shankar, J. M. Hoffman, S. Bacharach, M. M. Graham, J. Karp, A. A. Lammertsma, S. Larson, D. A. Mankoff, B. A. Siegel, A. Van den Abbeele, et al. Consensus Recommendations for the Use of 18F-FDG PET as an Indicator of Therapeutic Response in Patients in National Cancer Institute Trials J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2006; 47(6): 1059 - 1066. [Full Text] [PDF]