Dynamic
Adult
Aged
Aorta, Thoracic
/ diagnostic imaging
Bile Duct Neoplasms
/ blood supply
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular
/ blood supply
Cholangiocarcinoma
/ blood supply
Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Hepatic Artery
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
Liver Neoplasms
/ blood supply
Male
Middle Aged
Portal Vein
/ diagnostic imaging
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
Radiopharmaceuticals
Dual input function
FDG
Hepatocellular carcinoma
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
Kinetic model
Journal
BMC medical imaging
ISSN: 1471-2342
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Imaging
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 05 2021
25 05 2021
Historique:
received:
24
11
2020
accepted:
17
05
2021
entrez:
26
5
2021
pubmed:
27
5
2021
medline:
27
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Dynamic PET with kinetic modeling was reported to be potentially helpful in the assessment of hepatic malignancy. In this study, a kinetic modeling analysis was performed on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) from dynamic FDG positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PET/CT) scans. A reversible two-tissue compartment model with dual blood input function, which takes into consideration the blood supply from both hepatic artery and portal vein, was used for accurate kinetic modeling of liver dynamic Results showed significant differences in kinetic parameters [Formula: see text], blood supplying fraction [Formula: see text], and metabolic rate constant [Formula: see text] between malignant lesions and healthy liver tissue. And significant differences were also observed in [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] between HCC and ICC lesions. Further investigations of the effect of SUV measurements on the derived kinetic parameters were conducted. And results showed comparable effectiveness of the kinetic modeling using either SUVmean or SUVmax measurements. Dynamic 18F-FDG PET imaging with optimization-derived hepatic artery blood supply fraction dual-blood input function kinetic modeling can effectively distinguish malignant lesions from healthy liver tissue, as well as HCC and ICC lesions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Dynamic PET with kinetic modeling was reported to be potentially helpful in the assessment of hepatic malignancy. In this study, a kinetic modeling analysis was performed on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) from dynamic FDG positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PET/CT) scans.
METHODS
A reversible two-tissue compartment model with dual blood input function, which takes into consideration the blood supply from both hepatic artery and portal vein, was used for accurate kinetic modeling of liver dynamic
RESULTS
Results showed significant differences in kinetic parameters [Formula: see text], blood supplying fraction [Formula: see text], and metabolic rate constant [Formula: see text] between malignant lesions and healthy liver tissue. And significant differences were also observed in [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] between HCC and ICC lesions. Further investigations of the effect of SUV measurements on the derived kinetic parameters were conducted. And results showed comparable effectiveness of the kinetic modeling using either SUVmean or SUVmax measurements.
CONCLUSIONS
Dynamic 18F-FDG PET imaging with optimization-derived hepatic artery blood supply fraction dual-blood input function kinetic modeling can effectively distinguish malignant lesions from healthy liver tissue, as well as HCC and ICC lesions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34034664
doi: 10.1186/s12880-021-00623-2
pii: 10.1186/s12880-021-00623-2
pmc: PMC8152049
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
90Références
Acta Radiol. 2010 Sep;51(7):782-8
pubmed: 20707663
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Jan;48(1):21-39
pubmed: 32430580
Phys Med Biol. 2020 Feb 10;65(4):045001
pubmed: 31896098
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Jul 24;63(15):155004
pubmed: 29847315
Clin Exp Metastasis. 2017 Apr;34(3-4):251-260
pubmed: 28429188
EJNMMI Phys. 2018 Dec 1;5(1):29
pubmed: 30506174
EJNMMI Phys. 2017 Dec 06;4(1):30
pubmed: 29209862
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Dec;36(12):2014-26
pubmed: 19526238
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1998 Jul;18(7):716-23
pubmed: 9663501
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Jan 22;:
pubmed: 33479842
Abdom Imaging. 2011 Jun;36(3):264-72
pubmed: 21267562
EJNMMI Res. 2018 May 9;8(1):37
pubmed: 29744748
J Nucl Med. 2001 May;42(5):795-801
pubmed: 11337579
Ann Surg Innov Res. 2010 Mar 26;4:2
pubmed: 20346153
Sci Rep. 2020 May 7;10(1):7717
pubmed: 32382050
Liver Transpl. 2015 May;21(5):572-80
pubmed: 25644857
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jan;68(1):7-30
pubmed: 29313949
Q J Nucl Med. 2002 Mar;46(1):70-85
pubmed: 12072847
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1992 Sep-Oct;16(5):684-9
pubmed: 1522257
Hepatol Res. 2015 Jan;45(1):1-9
pubmed: 24533487
J Nucl Med. 1995 Oct;36(10):1811-7
pubmed: 7562048
J Nucl Med. 1992 Mar;33(3):333-9
pubmed: 1311035
Theranostics. 2015 Jan 21;5(4):371-7
pubmed: 25699097
Neuroimage. 1997 Nov;6(4):279-87
pubmed: 9417971
Int J Oncol. 2008 Nov;33(5):1047-54
pubmed: 18949368
J Nucl Med. 1994 May;35(5):818-23
pubmed: 8176464
J Nucl Med. 2008 Dec;49(12):1912-21
pubmed: 18997056
Cancer Sci. 2008 Feb;99(2):260-6
pubmed: 18271924
Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2017 Feb;6(1):22-34
pubmed: 28261592
J Nucl Med. 2001 Nov;42(11):1622-9
pubmed: 11696630
World J Gastroenterol. 2019 Mar 21;25(11):1289-1306
pubmed: 30918424
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Feb;38(2):263-70
pubmed: 20882283
Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Jan 28;6(1):73-83
pubmed: 27069767
J Nucl Med. 1996 Jan;37(1):95-104
pubmed: 8544011
J Nucl Med. 2012 Mar;53(3):425-33
pubmed: 22323781