Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research Article1980s

Quantitative Cerebral Blood Flow with PET in the 1980s: Going with the Flow (perspective on “Brain Blood Flow Measured with Intravenous H2 15O. I. Theory and Error Analysis” J Nucl Med. 1983;24:782–789 and “Brain Blood Flow Measured with Intravenous H2 15O. II. Implementation and Validation” J Nucl Med. 1983;24:790–798)

Richard E. Carson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine December 2020, 61 (Supplement 2) 89S-104S; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.252130
Richard E. Carson
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Nuclear medicine in general and PET imaging in particular have long provided the opportunity for quantitative measurements of human physiology in vivo. Practical methodology for these measurements came to pass in the late 1970s and early 1980s as PET scanners provided quantitative images of radioactivity in humans after injection of radiopharmaceuticals. Furthermore, studies on the human brain became a focus because image quality for the brain was far superior to that for other parts of the body, for reasons such as the lower attenuation in the head. An obvious target for quantification was cerebral blood flow (CBF), using the elegantly simple flow agent 15O-water. After intravenous injection, water arrives rapidly in the brain and is extracted with high efficiency, so that the initial uptake is nearly proportional to blood flow.

In the 1980s, several groups were working on methods for quantification of blood flow with 15O-water. The Washington University group developed elegant quantification methods, presented in seminal papers by Herscovitch et al. and Raichle et al. in 1983 (1,2). The methodology was challenging, involving producing an isotope with a 2-min half-life, rapidly producing labeled water in injectable form, delivering a bolus injection with more than 925 MBq (25 mCi) of activity, rapidly collecting arterial samples to define the blood time–activity curve, and, of course, acquiring and reconstructing PET images. These were not experiments to be undertaken by the faint of heart.

The 1983 papers of Herscovitch, Raichle, and their colleagues exemplified the ideal approach for development of quantitative imaging assays with PET. First, the authors based their studies on classic tracer methods and kinetic modeling techniques, in which they used equations to explain the relationship between the tissue radioactivity data and the underlying physiologic parameter of interest, that is, CBF. They used nonhuman primate studies to validate the PET measures against established, nontomographic flow approaches. Further, they found ways to simplify the approach to make it practical, given the acquisition limitations of the systems of that era. The kinetic model was reformulated to allow measurement of one image with one scan (i.e., one equation and one unknown). To do this, the authors added a physiologically reasonable constraint for the partition coefficient of water in the brain. Finally, the authors developed a simple implementation of the model to allow the creation of CBF images from the reconstructed radioactivity images that did not overly tax the capabilities of the minicomputers of the day.

Other investigators of the era used different analytic approaches, still applying bolus injections of 15O-water and rapid arterial sampling (3,4). These techniques extended the methodology, finding novel ways to use the dynamic nature of tracer influx and efflux, even though dynamic scans were not readily available.

Today, things are different, and they are also exactly the same. Yes, our systems are much more powerful, with far greater sensitivity, resolution, accuracy, and precision. The image quality we see today was unimaginable in 1983. But practically, this simply comes down to having more counts and more pixels (and, fortunately, much faster computers). The fundamentals of physiology and pharmacology have not changed. We continue to apply similar tools and methods that follow the approaches exemplified in these papers. Using specific radiopharmaceuticals, we develop kinetic modeling methods and experimental designs to quantify brain proteins, receptors, enzymes, and transporters (5). We validate the methodology with animal studies and human drug occupancy experiments. Then, we find ways to simplify the analysis approaches, such as Patlak and Logan graphical analysis methods. Further, we can use our understanding of the tracer’s characteristics to produce more patient-friendly approaches by using SUVs (e.g., for 18F-FDG) or SUV ratios (e.g., for amyloid or tau brain imaging). All of these approaches have been more commonly applied for brain imaging, in part because of better quantification accuracy in the brain (e.g., simpler, rigid head motion), as well as the blood–brain barrier that restricts entry of radiolabeled metabolites. However, there is recent growth in the development and application of patient-friendly quantitative physiologic methods for body imaging

And what about the measurement of CBF with PET today; are we still going with the flow? With the advent of functional MRI (blood oxygenation level–dependent and arterial spin labeling), PET is seldom used in investigations of CBF (although it was extensively used to validate functional MRI methods). To my mind, the transfer of CBF studies from PET to MRI was one of the best things that could have happened to brain PET. Instead, we in nuclear medicine can focus on what we do best and what we can uniquely do, that is, develop and apply specific radiopharmaceuticals operating in picomolar quantities to measure virtually any aspect of human biology.

DISCLOSURE

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

  • © 2020 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Herscovitch P,
    2. Markham J,
    3. Raichle ME
    . Brain blood flow measured with intravenous H215O. I. Theory and error analysis. J Nucl Med. 1983;24:782–789.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Raichle ME,
    2. Martin WR,
    3. Herscovitch P,
    4. Mintun MA,
    5. Markham J
    . Brain blood flow measured with intravenous H215O. II. Implementation and validation. J Nucl Med. 1983;24:790–798.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Huang SC,
    2. Carson RE,
    3. Phelps ME
    . Measurement of local blood flow and distribution volume with short-lived isotopes: a general input technique. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1982;2:99–108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Alpert NM,
    2. Eriksson L,
    3. Chang JY,
    4. et al
    . Strategy for the measurement of regional cerebral blood flow using short-lived tracers and emission tomography. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1984;4:28–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Hooker JM,
    2. Carson RE
    . Human positron emission tomography neuroimaging. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2019;21:551–581.
    OpenUrl
  • Received for publication June 22, 2020.
  • Accepted for publication June 26, 2020.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 61 (Supplement 2)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 61, Issue Supplement 2
December 1, 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Quantitative Cerebral Blood Flow with PET in the 1980s: Going with the Flow (perspective on “Brain Blood Flow Measured with Intravenous H2 15O. I. Theory and Error Analysis” J Nucl Med. 1983;24:782–789 and “Brain Blood Flow Measured with Intravenous H2 1…
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Quantitative Cerebral Blood Flow with PET in the 1980s: Going with the Flow (perspective on “Brain Blood Flow Measured with Intravenous H2 15O. I. Theory and Error Analysis” J Nucl Med. 1983;24:782–789 and “Brain Blood Flow Measured with Intravenous H2 15O. II. Implementation and Validation” J Nucl Med. 1983;24:790–798)
Richard E. Carson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Dec 2020, 61 (Supplement 2) 89S-104S; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.252130

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Quantitative Cerebral Blood Flow with PET in the 1980s: Going with the Flow (perspective on “Brain Blood Flow Measured with Intravenous H2 15O. I. Theory and Error Analysis” J Nucl Med. 1983;24:782–789 and “Brain Blood Flow Measured with Intravenous H2 15O. II. Implementation and Validation” J Nucl Med. 1983;24:790–798)
Richard E. Carson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Dec 2020, 61 (Supplement 2) 89S-104S; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.252130
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • DISCLOSURE
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A Mighty Oak Forest from a Single, Well-Planted Acorn (perspective on “Radiolabeled Adrenergic Neuron-Blocking Agents: Adrenomedullary Imaging with [131I] Iodobenzylguanidine” J Nucl Med. 1980;21:349–353)
  • 18F-FDG Radiosynthesis: A Landmark in the History of PET (perspective on “Efficient Stereospecific Synthesis of No-Carrier-Added 2-[18F]fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Using Aminopolyether Supported Nucleophilic Substitution” J Nucl Med. 1986;27:235–238)
Show more 1980s

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire