Low-dose
18F-FDG
Brown adipose tissue
Clinical
Dose optimization
PET/MR
Supraclavicular region
Journal
EJNMMI research
ISSN: 2191-219X
Titre abrégé: EJNMMI Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101560946
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Jan 2020
23 Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
18
09
2019
accepted:
12
01
2020
entrez:
25
1
2020
pubmed:
25
1
2020
medline:
25
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Positron emission tomography (PET) is increasingly applied for in vivo brown adipose tissue (BAT) research in healthy volunteers. To limit the radiation exposure, the injected Twenty datasets from 13 volunteers were retrospectively included from a prospective clinical study. PET emission datasets were modified to simulate step-wise reductions of the original 75 MBq injected dose. The resulting PET images were visually and quantitatively assessed and compared to a 4-min reference scan. For the visual assessment, the image quality and artifacts were scored using a 5-point and a 3-point Likert scale. For the quantitative analysis, image noise and artifacts, BAT metabolic activity, BAT metabolic volume (BMV), and total BAT glycolysis (TBG) were investigated. The visual assessment showed still good image quality for the 35%, 30%, and 25% activity reconstructions with no artifacts. Quantitatively, the background noise was similar to the reference for the 35% and 30% activity reconstructions and the artifacts started to increase significantly in the 25% and lower activity reconstructions. There was no significant difference in supraclavicular BAT metabolic activity, BMV, and TBG between the reference and the 35% to 20% activity reconstructions. This study indicates that when the PET acquisition time is matched to the 10-min MRI protocol, the injected
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Positron emission tomography (PET) is increasingly applied for in vivo brown adipose tissue (BAT) research in healthy volunteers. To limit the radiation exposure, the injected
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty datasets from 13 volunteers were retrospectively included from a prospective clinical study. PET emission datasets were modified to simulate step-wise reductions of the original 75 MBq injected dose. The resulting PET images were visually and quantitatively assessed and compared to a 4-min reference scan. For the visual assessment, the image quality and artifacts were scored using a 5-point and a 3-point Likert scale. For the quantitative analysis, image noise and artifacts, BAT metabolic activity, BAT metabolic volume (BMV), and total BAT glycolysis (TBG) were investigated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The visual assessment showed still good image quality for the 35%, 30%, and 25% activity reconstructions with no artifacts. Quantitatively, the background noise was similar to the reference for the 35% and 30% activity reconstructions and the artifacts started to increase significantly in the 25% and lower activity reconstructions. There was no significant difference in supraclavicular BAT metabolic activity, BMV, and TBG between the reference and the 35% to 20% activity reconstructions.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study indicates that when the PET acquisition time is matched to the 10-min MRI protocol, the injected
Identifiants
pubmed: 31974702
doi: 10.1186/s13550-020-0592-8
pii: 10.1186/s13550-020-0592-8
pmc: PMC6977803
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
5Subventions
Organisme : Swiss National Science Foundation
ID : grant no. PZ00P3_167823
Pays : Switzerland
Références
Biochem J. 2000 Jan 15;345 Pt 2:161-79
pubmed: 10620491
EJNMMI Phys. 2014 Jul;1(Suppl 1):A68
pubmed: 26501658
Diabetes. 2015 Jul;64(7):2352-60
pubmed: 26050667
Metabolism. 2017 May;70:23-30
pubmed: 28403942
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1986;111(1):82-5
pubmed: 3949854
J Nucl Med. 2003 Feb;44(2):170-6
pubmed: 12571205
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Oct;26(4):1153-61
pubmed: 17896369
Nat Med. 2015 Aug;21(8):863-5
pubmed: 26147760
Lancet. 2011 Aug 27;378(9793):815-25
pubmed: 21872750
Skeletal Radiol. 2019 Mar;48(3):413-419
pubmed: 30215105
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Jun;91:41-46
pubmed: 28629569
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2005;44(10):1051-65
pubmed: 16176118
J Clin Invest. 2013 Aug;123(8):3395-403
pubmed: 23867626
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002 Oct;29(10):1393-8
pubmed: 12271425
Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2019;251:299-324
pubmed: 30099625
J Nucl Med. 2003 Aug;44(8):1267-70
pubmed: 12902417
Cell Metab. 2016 Aug 9;24(2):210-22
pubmed: 27508870
EJNMMI Phys. 2019 Jul 4;6(1):11
pubmed: 31273558
Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 4;8(1):8567
pubmed: 29867076
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 22;11(2):e0149458
pubmed: 26901352
Eur J Endocrinol. 2018 Jul;179(1):31-38
pubmed: 29724865
Cell Metab. 2015 Jan 6;21(1):33-8
pubmed: 25565203
Nucl Med Commun. 2017 Jul;38(7):629-635
pubmed: 28509766
Semin Nucl Med. 2015 May;45(3):192-200
pubmed: 25841274
N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 9;360(15):1509-17
pubmed: 19357406
Cell Metab. 2019 Apr 2;29(4):901-916.e8
pubmed: 30581121
J Endocr Soc. 2019 Oct 14;3(12):2374-2384
pubmed: 31745532
N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 9;360(15):1518-25
pubmed: 19357407