Table of Contents
International Journal of Molecular Imaging
Volume 2011, Article ID 185083, 12 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/185083
Research Article

Patient-Specific Method of Generating Parametric Maps of Patlak without Blood Sampling or Metabolite Correction: A Feasibility Study

1UCSF Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628, USA
2Division of Nuclear Medicine, Radiological Associates of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA 95815, USA
3UCSF Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94115-1708, USA
4UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA 94143-0875, USA
5UC Berkeley & UCSF Graduate Program in Bioengineering, Berkeley and San Francisco, CA 94158-2330, USA

Received 1 May 2011; Accepted 23 June 2011

Academic Editor: Oliver C. Y. Wong

Copyright © 2011 George A. Sayre et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. Hossein, A. Alavi, and S. S. Gambhir, “18F-FDG uptake in lung, breast, and colon cancers: molecular biology correlates and disease characterization,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 1820–1827, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. V. Grégoire, K. Haustermans, X. Geets, S. Roels, and M. Lonneux, “PET-based treatment planning in radiotherapy: a new standard?” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 48, pp. 68S–78S, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. R. J. Gillies, I. Robey, and R. A. Gatenby, “Causes and consequences of increased glucose metabolism of cancers,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 49, pp. 24S–42S, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. C. Plathow and W. A. Weber, “Tumor cell metabolism imaging,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 49, pp. 43S–63S, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. R. A. Gatenby and R. J. Gillies, “A microenvironmental model of carcinogenesis,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 56–61, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. S. Zhao, Y. Kuge, T. Mochizuki et al., “Biologic correlates of intratumoral heterogeneity in 18F-FDG distribution with regional expression of glucose transporters and hexokinase-II in experimental tumor,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 675–682, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. P. Morand, R. A. Koeppe, B. Giordani, S. Berent, and D. E. Kuhl, “Diminished glucose transport and phosphorylation in Alzheimer's disease determined by dynamic FDG-PET,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 201–208, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. F. E. Turkheimer, J. A. D. Aston, R. B. Banati, C. Riddell, and V. J. Cunningham, “A linear wavelet filter for parametric imaging with dynamic PET,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 289–301, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. M. M. Graham, L. M. Peterson, and R. M. Hayward, “Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake,” Nuclear Medicine and Biology, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 647–655, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. S. K. Sundaram, N. M. T. Freedman, J. A. Carrasquillo et al., “Simplified kinetic analysis of tumor 18F-FDG uptake: a dynamic approach,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 1328–1333, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. G. Lucignani, G. Paganelli, and E. Bombardieri, “The use of standardized uptake values for assessing FDG uptake with PET in oncology: a clinical perspective,” Nuclear Medicine Communications, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 651–656, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. W. A. Weber, “Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 983–995, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, L. G. Strauss, G. Egerer et al., “Impact of dynamic 18F-FDG PET on the early prediction of therapy outcome in patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcomas after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a feasibility study,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 551–558, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. N. M. T. Freedman, S. K. Sundaram, K. Kurdziel et al., “Comparison of SUV and Patlak slope for monitoring of cancer therapy using serial PET scans,” The European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 46–53, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. N. Gupta, H. Gill, G. Graeber, H. Bishop, J. Hurst, and T. Stephens, “Dynamic positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in differentiation of benign from malignant lung/mediastinal lesions,” Chest, vol. 114, no. 4, pp. 1105–1111, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, L. G. Strauss, T. Heichel et al., “The role of quantitative 18F-FDG PET studies for the differentiation of malignant and benign bone lesions,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 510–518, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, L. G. Strauss, M. Schwarzbach et al., “Dynamic PET 18F-FDG studies in patients with primary and recurrent soft-tissue sarcomas: impact on diagnosis and correlation with grading,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 713–720, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, M. Seiz, J. Tuettenberg et al., “Pharmacokinetic studies of 68Ga-labeled Bombesin (68Ga-BZH3) and F-18 FDG PET in patients with recurrent gliomas and comparison to grading: preliminary results,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 101–108, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  19. E. P. Visser, M. E. Philippens, L. Kienhorst et al., “Comparison of tumor volumes derived from glucose metabolic rate maps and SUV maps in dynamic 18F-FDG PET,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 892–898, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. F. Deininger, P. Meyer, T. Beckers et al., “Contrast improvement of FDG microPET studies by voxel-wise Patlak analysis,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, supplement 2, p. 114, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  21. D. Vriens, L. F. de Geus-Oei, W. Oyen, and E. Visser, “Pharmacokinetic analysis of tumor heterogeneity using FDG-PET,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, supplement 2, p. 113, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  22. F. O'Sullivan, J. Kirrane, M. Muzi et al., “Kinetic quantitation of cerebral PET-FDG studies without concurrent blood sampling: statistical recovery of the arterial input function,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 610–624, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. C. S. Patlak, R. G. Blasberg, and J. D. Fenstermacher, “Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data,” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 1983. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. D. Vriens, L. F. de Geus-Oei, W. J. G. Oyen, and E. P. Visser, “A curve-fitting approach to estimate the arterial plasma input function for the assessment of glucose metabolic rate and response to treatment,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 1933–1939, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. C. S. Patlak and R. G. Blasberg, “Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data. Generalizations,” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 584–590, 1985. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. D. W. Marquardt, “An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters,” Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, vol. 11, pp. 431–441, 1963. View at Google Scholar
  27. E. P. Visser, O. C. Boerman, and W. J. G. Oyen, “SUV: from silly useless value to smart uptake value,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 173–175, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. E. C. Ford, J. Herman, E. Yorke, and R. L. Wahl, “18F-FDG PET/CT for image-guided and intensity-modulated radiotherapy,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 1655–1665, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. M. Yaqub, R. Boellaard, M. A. Kropholler, and A. A. Lammertsma, “Optimization algorithms and weighting factors for analysis of dynamic PET studies,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 51, no. 17, pp. 4217–4232, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. D. H. Kim, A. Wang-Chesebro, V. Weinberg et al., “High-dose rate brachytherapy using inverse planning simulated annealing for locoregionally advanced cervical cancer: a clinical report with 2-year follow-up,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 1329–1334, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. U. Maulik, “Medical image segmentation using genetic algorithms,” IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 166–173, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. B. T. Christian, N. T. Vandehey, J. M. Floberg, and C. A. Mistretta, “Dynamic PET denoising with HYPR processing,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 1147–1154, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. H. Zhuang, M. Pourdehnad, E. S. Lambright et al., “Dual time point 18F-FDG PET imaging for differentiating malignant from inflammatory processes,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 1412–1417, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. A. M. Spence, M. Muzi, D. A. Mankoff et al., “18F-FDG PET of gliomas at delayed intervals: improved distinction between tumor and normal gray matter,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 1653–1659, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. P. Tylski, S. Stute, N. Grotus et al., “Comparative assessment of methods for estimating tumor volume and standardized uptake value in 18F-FDG PET,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 268–276, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. J. A. Thie, K. F. Hubner, and G. T. Smith, “Combining PET and SPECT uptake slopes and values for optimal diagnosis: demonstration on solitary pulmonary nodules using FDG,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 44, supplement 253P, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  37. L. Mosconi, W. H. Tsui, H. Rusinek et al., “Quantitation, regional vulnerability, and kinetic modeling of brain glucose metabolism in mild Alzheimer's disease,” The European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 1467–1479, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. R. Mistur, L. Mosconi, S. de Santi et al., “Current challenges for the early detection of Alzheimer's disease: brain imaging and CSF studies,” Journal of Clinical Neurology, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 153–166, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar