JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by de Geus-Oei, L.-F.
Right arrow Articles by Oyen, W. J.G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by de Geus-Oei, L.-F.
Right arrow Articles by Oyen, W. J.G.

Comparison of Image-Derived and Arterial Input Functions for Estimating the Rate of Glucose Metabolism in Therapy-Monitoring 18F-FDG PET Studies

Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei1, Eric P. Visser1, Paul F.M. Krabbe2, Bas A. van Hoorn1, Emile B. Koenders1, Antoon T. Willemsen3, Jan Pruim3, Frans H.M. Corstens1 and Wim J.G. Oyen1

1 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 2 Department of Medical Technology Assessment, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; and 3 Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands


Figure 1
View larger version (25K):

[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1.  Scatterplots of MRGlu, expressed in µmol·mL–1·min–1, as calculated using ascending aorta IDIF (A), left ventricle IDIF (B), or abdominal aorta IDIF (C) to that calculated using arterial-sampling–derived input function. Ninety-five percent prediction intervals are indicated by dotted lines.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (14K):

[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2.  Scatterplots of MRGlu values based on IDIF of left ventricle vs. MRGlu values based on arterial sampling, for groups without (A) and with (B) 18F-FDG uptake in myocardial wall.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (26K):

[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3.  IDIF left ventricle of a patient without myocardial uptake of 18F-FDG (A) and a patient with high myocardial uptake of 18F-FDG (B) plotted against arterially sampled input functions derived from same dynamic dataset. In A, only partial-volume effect affects IDIF. All time points are lower, but IDIF curve stays isomorphic to arterial-sampling curve. In B, trapping of 18F-FDG is predominant. Curves stay isomorphic until time at which trapping cannot be neglected and IDIF values start to exceed arterial-sampling values.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Copyright © 2006 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine.