Clinical application of a population-based input function (PBIF) for a shortened dynamic whole-body FDG-PET/CT protocol in patients with metastatic melanoma treated by immunotherapy.
18F-FDG
Dynamic whole-body PET
PBIF
Parametric imaging
Journal
EJNMMI physics
ISSN: 2197-7364
Titre abrégé: EJNMMI Phys
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101658952
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Dec 2023
08 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
30
08
2023
accepted:
28
11
2023
medline:
8
12
2023
pubmed:
8
12
2023
entrez:
7
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim was to investigate the feasibility of a shortened dynamic whole-body (dWB) FDG-PET/CT protocol and Patlak imaging using a population-based input function (PBIF), instead of an image-derived input function (IDIF) across the 60-min post-injection period, and study its effect on the FDG influx rate (Ki) quantification in patients with metastatic melanoma (MM) undergoing immunotherapy. Thirty-seven patients were enrolled, including a PBIF modeling group (n = 17) and an independent validation cohort (n = 20) of MM from the ongoing prospective IMMUNOPET2 trial. All dWB-PET data were acquired on Vision 600 PET/CT systems. The PBIF was fitted using a Feng's 4-compartments model and scaled to the individual IDIF tail's section within the shortened acquisition time. The area under the curve (AUC) of PBIFs was compared to respective IDIFs AUC within 9 shortened time windows (TW) in terms of linear correlation (R The mean ± SD relative AUC bias was calculated at 0.5 ± 3.8% (R Our study showed the feasibility of a shortened dWB-PET imaging protocol with a PBIF approach, allowing to reduce acquisition duration from 70 to 20 min with reasonable bias. These findings open perspectives for its clinical use in routine practice such as treatment response assessment in oncology.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim was to investigate the feasibility of a shortened dynamic whole-body (dWB) FDG-PET/CT protocol and Patlak imaging using a population-based input function (PBIF), instead of an image-derived input function (IDIF) across the 60-min post-injection period, and study its effect on the FDG influx rate (Ki) quantification in patients with metastatic melanoma (MM) undergoing immunotherapy.
METHODS
METHODS
Thirty-seven patients were enrolled, including a PBIF modeling group (n = 17) and an independent validation cohort (n = 20) of MM from the ongoing prospective IMMUNOPET2 trial. All dWB-PET data were acquired on Vision 600 PET/CT systems. The PBIF was fitted using a Feng's 4-compartments model and scaled to the individual IDIF tail's section within the shortened acquisition time. The area under the curve (AUC) of PBIFs was compared to respective IDIFs AUC within 9 shortened time windows (TW) in terms of linear correlation (R
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean ± SD relative AUC bias was calculated at 0.5 ± 3.8% (R
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our study showed the feasibility of a shortened dWB-PET imaging protocol with a PBIF approach, allowing to reduce acquisition duration from 70 to 20 min with reasonable bias. These findings open perspectives for its clinical use in routine practice such as treatment response assessment in oncology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38062278
doi: 10.1186/s40658-023-00601-3
pii: 10.1186/s40658-023-00601-3
pmc: PMC10703763
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
79Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
EJNMMI Phys. 2020 Nov 23;7(1):67
pubmed: 33226522
Int J Biomed Comput. 1993 Mar;32(2):95-110
pubmed: 8449593
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Jan;47(1):28-50
pubmed: 31637482
Br J Radiol. 2018 Jan;91(1081):20170508
pubmed: 29164924
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 1;372(1):30-9
pubmed: 25399551
Eur Radiol. 2019 Sep;29(9):4812-4821
pubmed: 30689031
Med Phys. 2021 May;48(5):2160-2169
pubmed: 32304095
Med Phys. 2022 Jul;49(7):4529-4539
pubmed: 35394071
Bull Cancer. 2019 Mar;106(3):262-274
pubmed: 30683308
Life (Basel). 2022 Aug 30;12(9):
pubmed: 36143386
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2009 Nov;29(11):1825-35
pubmed: 19584890
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Nov 22;8:725387
pubmed: 34881253
J Nucl Med. 2017 Apr;58(4):523-532
pubmed: 28232605
J Nucl Med. 2006 Jun;47(6):945-9
pubmed: 16741303
Phys Med Biol. 2013 Oct 21;58(20):7419-45
pubmed: 24080994
EJNMMI Phys. 2022 Sep 8;9(1):60
pubmed: 36076097
Eur J Cancer. 1999 Dec;35(13):1773-82
pubmed: 10673991
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Nov 21;60(22):8643-73
pubmed: 26509251
EJNMMI Res. 2022 Mar 7;12(1):15
pubmed: 35254514
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023 Feb;50(3):652-660
pubmed: 36178535
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jan;46(1):238-250
pubmed: 30291373
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Apr 1;32(10):1020-30
pubmed: 24590637
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Jan;88:38-47
pubmed: 29182990
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1985 Dec;5(4):584-90
pubmed: 4055928
J Nucl Med. 2009 Jul;50(7):1168-77
pubmed: 19525469
EJNMMI Res. 2019 Jan 29;9(1):8
pubmed: 30694399
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2011 Oct;31(10):1986-98
pubmed: 21811289
J Nucl Med. 2009 May;50 Suppl 1:122S-50S
pubmed: 19403881
EJNMMI Phys. 2021 Feb 5;8(1):11
pubmed: 33547518
J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 1;34(13):1510-7
pubmed: 26951310
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022 May;49(6):1997-2009
pubmed: 34981164
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Aug 7;61(15):5456-85
pubmed: 27383991
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1998 Jul;18(7):716-23
pubmed: 9663501
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 30;10(9):e0139089
pubmed: 26421925
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Sep;34(9):1427-38
pubmed: 17431616
Phys Med Biol. 2022 May 12;67(10):
pubmed: 35472757
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023 Jan;50(2):257-265
pubmed: 36192468
EJNMMI Phys. 2022 Oct 29;9(1):74
pubmed: 36308568
Phys Med Biol. 2013 Oct 21;58(20):7391-418
pubmed: 24080962
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 25;372(26):2521-32
pubmed: 25891173
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2017 Apr;37(4):1398-1409
pubmed: 27342321