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) All Versions of this Article: jnumed.107.047613v1 49/4/606    most recent 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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Fang, Y.-H. D. Articles by Muzic, R. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fang, Y.-H. D. Articles by Muzic, R. F., Jr.

Spillover and Partial-Volume Correction for Image-Derived Input Functions for Small-Animal ¹⁸F-FDG PET Studies

¹ Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; ² Case Center for Imaging Research, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; and ³ Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: Raymond F. Muzic, Jr., PhD, Radiology, 11100 Euclid Ave., University Hospitals, Cleveland, OH 44106. E-mail: raymond.muzic{at}case.edu

We present and validate a method to obtain an input function from dynamic image data and 0 or 1 blood sample for small-animal ¹⁸F-FDG PET studies. The method accounts for spillover and partial-volume effects via a physiologic model to yield a model-corrected input function (MCIF). Methods: Image-derived input functions (IDIFs) from heart ventricles and myocardial time–activity curves were obtained from 14 Sprague–Dawley rats and 17 C57BL/6 mice. Each MCIF was expressed as a mathematic equation with 7 parameters, which were estimated simultaneously with the myocardial model parameters by fitting the IDIFs and myocardium curves to a dual-output compartment model. Zero or 1 late blood sample was used in the simultaneous estimation. MCIF was validated by comparison with input measured from blood samples. Validation included computing errors in the areas under the curves (AUCs) and in the ¹⁸F-FDG influx constant Ki in 3 types of tissue. Results: For the rat data, the AUC error was 5.3% ± 19.0% in the 0-sample MCIF and –2.3% ± 14.8% in the 1-sample MCIF. When the MCIF was used to calculate the Ki of the myocardium, brain, and muscle, the overall errors were –6.3% ± 27.0% in the 0-sample method (correlation coefficient r = 0.967) and 3.1% ± 20.6% in the 1-sample method (r = 0.970). The t test failed to detect a significant difference (P > 0.05) in the Ki estimates from both the 0-sample and the 1-sample MCIF. For the mouse data, AUC errors were 4.3% ± 25.5% in the 0-sample MCIF and –1.7% ± 20.9% in the 1-sample MCIF. Ki errors averaged –8.0% ± 27.6% for the 0-sample method (r = 0.955) and –2.8% ± 22.7% for the 1-sample method (r = 0.971). The t test detected significant differences in the brain and muscle in the Ki for the 0-sample method but no significant differences with the 1-sample method. In both rat and mouse, 0-sample and 1-sample MCIFs both showed at least a 10-fold reduction in AUC and Ki errors compared with uncorrected IDIFs. Conclusion: MCIF provides a reliable, noninvasive estimate of the input function that can be used to accurately quantify the glucose metabolic rate in small-animal ¹⁸F-FDG PET studies.

Key Words: input function • spillover correction • partial-volume effect correction • compartment modeling

COPYRIGHT © 2008 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.

Related articles in JNM:

This Month in JNM

JNM 2008 49: 11A-12A. [Full Text]