Comparative test-retest variability of outcome parameters derived from brain [18F]FDG PET studies in non-human primates.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
16
06
2020
accepted:
16
09
2020
entrez:
5
10
2020
pubmed:
6
10
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Knowledge of the repeatability of quantitative parameters derived from [18F]FDG PET images is essential to define the group size and allow correct interpretation. Here we tested repeatability and accuracy of different [18F]FDG absolute and relative quantification parameters in a standardized preclinical setup in nonhuman primates (NHP). Repeated brain [18F]FDG scans were performed in 6 healthy NHP under controlled experimental factors likely to account for variability. Regional cerebral metabolic rate of glucose (CMRglu) was calculated using a Patlak plot with blood input function Semi-quantitative approaches measuring standard uptake values (SUV, SUV×glycemia and SUVR (SUV Ratio) using the pons or cerebellum as a reference region) were considered. Test-retest variability of all quantification parameters were compared in different brain regions in terms of absolute variability and intra-and-inter-subject variabilities. In an independent [18F]FDG PET experiment, robustness of these parameters was evaluated in 4 naive NHP. Experimental conditions (injected dose, body weight, animal temperature) were the same at both imaging sessions (p >0.4). No significant difference in the [18F]FDG quantification parameters was found between test and retest sessions. Absolute variability of CMRglu, SUV, SUV×glycemia and normalized SUV ranged from 25 to 43%, 16 to 21%, 23 to 28%, and 7 to 14%, respectively. Intra-subject variability largely explained the absolute variability of all quantitative parameters. They were all significantly correlated to each other and they were all robust. Arterial and venous glycemia were highly correlated (r = 0.9691; p<0.0001). [18F]FDG test-retest studies in NHP protocols need to be conducted under well-standardized experimental conditions to assess and select the most reliable and reproducible quantification approach. Furthermore, the choice of the quantification parameter has to account for the transversal or follow-up study design. If pons and cerebellum regions are not affected, non-invasive SUVR is the most favorable approach for both designs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33017429
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240228
pii: PONE-D-20-17186
pmc: PMC7535063
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Glucose
IY9XDZ35W2
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0240228Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2018 Jul 1;21(7):687-696
pubmed: 29635319
Neuroimage. 2017 Nov 15;162:306-321
pubmed: 28899745
Neuroimage. 2014 Aug 1;96:276-87
pubmed: 24736171
Methods. 2002 Jul;27(3):218-25
pubmed: 12183109
EJNMMI Res. 2014 Jan 28;4(1):8
pubmed: 24472395
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Mar;42(3):478-94
pubmed: 25488184
J Med Primatol. 2014 Jun;43(3):162-8
pubmed: 24697511
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1985 Dec;5(4):584-90
pubmed: 4055928
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1987 Aug;7(4):427-32
pubmed: 3497163
J Nucl Med. 2009 May;50 Suppl 1:11S-20S
pubmed: 19380405
Radiology. 2014 Aug;272(2):541-8
pubmed: 24654972
Ann Nucl Med. 2005 Jul;19(5):373-7
pubmed: 16164193
Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2005 Nov;230(10):777-84
pubmed: 16246906
Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2016 Jul-Aug;56:68-74
pubmed: 27307090
Epilepsia. 2018 May;59(5):959-970
pubmed: 29663353
J Nucl Med. 2017 Apr;58(4):611-616
pubmed: 27789717
J Nucl Med. 2016 Oct;57(10):1591-1598
pubmed: 27056614
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Dec;36(12):2103-10
pubmed: 19838705
J Neurosci Methods. 2006 Sep 15;155(2):272-84
pubmed: 16519945
Front Neurosci. 2019 Jun 14;13:617
pubmed: 31258466
In Vivo. 2013 Jan-Feb;27(1):127-32
pubmed: 23239861
Nucl Med Commun. 2016 Aug;37(8):849-59
pubmed: 27058363
J Neuroimaging. 2005 Oct;15(4):348-55
pubmed: 16254400
Br J Anaesth. 2018 Jul;121(1):281-290
pubmed: 29935583
AAPS J. 2015 May;17(3):652-9
pubmed: 25716150
Ann Neurol. 1978 Oct;4(4):293-301
pubmed: 103488
Mol Imaging Biol. 2019 Apr;21(2):240-248
pubmed: 29987619
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1983 Mar;3(1):1-7
pubmed: 6822610
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2019 Aug;39(8):1516-1530
pubmed: 29790820
J Appl Toxicol. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):15-23
pubmed: 11180276
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2019 Sep 26;74:e1273
pubmed: 31576919
Biogerontology. 2012 Apr;13(2):147-55
pubmed: 22057901
Neurobiol Dis. 2019 Oct;130:104484
pubmed: 31132407
PET Clin. 2014 Jul;9(3):259-66
pubmed: 25030389