The complementary roles of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT for imaging of carotid atherosclerosis

  • Claudia Calcagno
  • Sarayu Ramachandran
  • David Izquierdo-Garcia
  • Venkatesh Mani
  • Antoine Millon
  • David Rosenbaum
  • Ahmed Tawakol
  • Mark Woodward
  • Jan Bucerius
  • Erin Moshier
  • James Godbold
  • David Kallend
  • Michael E. Farkouh
  • Valentin Fuster
  • James H. F. Rudd
  • Zahi A. FayadEmail author
Original Article



Inflammation and neovascularization in vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques are key features for severe clinical events. Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI and FDG PET are two noninvasive imaging techniques capable of quantifying plaque neovascularization and inflammatory infiltrate, respectively. However, their mutual role in defining plaque vulnerability and their possible overlap has not been thoroughly investigated. We studied the relationship between DCE-MRI and 18F-FDG PET data from the carotid arteries of 40 subjects with coronary heart disease (CHD) or CHD risk equivalent, as a substudy of the dal-PLAQUE trial (NCT00655473).


The dal-PLAQUE trial was a multicenter study that evaluated dalcetrapib, a cholesteryl ester transfer protein modulator. Subjects underwent anatomical MRI, DCE-MRI and 18F-FDG PET. Only baseline imaging and biomarker data (before randomization) from dal-PLAQUE were used as part of this substudy. Our primary goal was to evaluate the relationship between DCE-MRI and 18F-FDG PET data. As secondary endpoints, we evaluated the relationship between (a) PET data and whole-vessel anatomical MRI data, and (b) DCE-MRI and matching anatomical MRI data. All correlations were estimated using a mixed linear model.


We found a significant inverse relationship between several perfusion indices by DCE-MRI and 18F-FDG uptake by PET. Regarding our secondary endpoints, there was a significant relationship between plaque burden measured by anatomical MRI with several perfusion indices by DCE-MRI and 18F-FDG uptake by PET. No relationship was found between plaque composition by anatomical MRI and DCE-MRI or 18F-FDG PET metrics.


In this study we observed a significant, weak inverse relationship between inflammation measured as 18F-FDG uptake by PET and plaque perfusion by DCE-MRI. Our findings suggest that there may be a complex relationship between plaque inflammation and microvascularization during the different stages of plaque development. 18F-FDG PET and DCE-MRI may have complementary roles in future clinical practice in identifying subjects at high risk of cardiovascular events.


DCE-MRI PET/CT Atherosclerosis Inflammation Neovascularization 



F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd funded the dal-PLAQUE study and provided third-party editorial support, through Prime Healthcare Ltd, for the preparation of the manuscript. C.C. acknowledges grant and research support from the National Institutes of Health and National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NIH/NHLBI R01 HL071021, NIH/NHLBI R01 HL078667 and NIH/NCRR UL1RR029887).

Conflicts of interest

S.R., D.I.-G., A.M., D.R., J.B., E.M., J.G. and V.F. indicate that they have nothing to disclose. VM discloses that he receives consulting fees from Tursiop Inc. A.T. discloses that he has received honoraria from Roche, BMS and Novartis, and research grants from Merck, BMS, Genentech, GSK and VBL. M.W. discloses that he has received honoraria from Roche. D.K. is an employee of F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. M.E.F. discloses that he has received honoraria from Roche and acted as a consultant to Genentech. J.H.F.R. discloses that he has received honoraria from Roche and is part-supported by the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. Z.A.F. discloses that he has received research grants from Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, VBL Therapeutics, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Via Pharmaceuticals, and honoraria from Roche.

Supplementary material

259_2013_2518_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 23 kb)


  1. 1.
    Virmani R, Burke AP, Farb A, Kolodgie FD. Pathology of the vulnerable plaque. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47 Suppl:C13–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fuster V, Fayad ZA, Moreno PR, Poon M, Corti R, Badimon JJ. Atherothrombosis and high-risk plaque: Part II: approaches by noninvasive computed tomographic/magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:1209–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rudd JH, Warburton EA, Fryer TD, Jones HA, Clark JC, Antoun N, et al. Imaging atherosclerotic plaque inflammation with [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Circulation. 2002;105:2708–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tawakol A, Migrino RQ, Bashian GG, Bedri S, Vermylen D, Cury RC, et al. In vivo 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging provides a noninvasive measure of carotid plaque inflammation in patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1818–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rudd JH, Myers KS, Bansilal S, Machac J, Rafique A, Farkouh M, et al. [18]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging of atherosclerotic plaque inflammation is highly reproducible: implications for atherosclerosis therapy trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:892–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calcagno C, Cornily JC, Hyafil F, Rudd JH, Briley-Saebo KC, Mani V, et al. Detection of neovessels in atherosclerotic plaques of rabbits using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG PET. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2008;28:1311–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kerwin W, Hooker A, Spilker M, Vicini P, Ferguson M, Hatsukami T, et al. Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging analysis of neovasculature volume in carotid atherosclerotic plaque. Circulation. 2003;107:851–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kerwin WS, O'Brien KD, Ferguson MS, Polissar N, Hatsukami TS, Yuan C. Inflammation in carotid atherosclerotic plaque: a dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging study. Radiology. 2006;241:459–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kerwin WS, Oikawa M, Yuan C, Jarvik GP, Hatsukami TS. MR imaging of adventitial vasa vasorum in carotid atherosclerosis. Magn Reson Med. 2008;59:507–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calcagno C, Vucic E, Mani V, Goldschlager G, Fayad ZA. Reproducibility of black blood dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in aortic plaques of atherosclerotic rabbits. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;32:191–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lobatto ME, Fayad ZA, Silvera S, Vucic E, Calcagno C, Mani V, et al. Multimodal clinical imaging to longitudinally assess a nanomedical anti-inflammatory treatment in experimental atherosclerosis. Mol Pharm. 2010;7:2020–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vucic E, Dickson SD, Calcagno C, Rudd JH, Moshier E, Hayashi K, et al. Pioglitazone modulates vascular inflammation in atherosclerotic rabbits noninvasive assessment with FDG-PET-CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:1100–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vucic E, Calcagno C, Dickson SD, Rudd JH, Hayashi K, Bucerius J, et al. Regression of inflammation in atherosclerosis by the LXR agonist R211945: a noninvasive assessment and comparison with atorvastatin. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:819–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fayad ZA, Mani V, Woodward M, Kallend D, Bansilal S, Pozza J, et al. Rationale and design of dal-PLAQUE: a study assessing efficacy and safety of dalcetrapib on progression or regression of atherosclerosis using magnetic resonance imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Am Heart J. 2011;162:214–221.e2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fayad ZA, Mani V, Woodward M, Kallend D, Abt M, Burgess T, et al. Safety and efficacy of dalcetrapib on atherosclerotic disease using novel non-invasive multimodality imaging (dal-PLAQUE): a randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2011;378:1547–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fayad ZA, Mani V, Fuster V. The time has come for clinical cardiovascular trials with plaque characterization as an endpoint. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:160–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mani V, Muntner P, Gidding SS, Aguiar SH, El Aidi H, Weinshelbaum KB, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance parameters of atherosclerotic plaque burden improve discrimination of prior major adverse cardiovascular events. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2009;11:10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haacke EM, Brown RW, Thompson MR, Venkatesan R. Magnetic resonance imaging: physical principles and sequence design. New York: Wiley; 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sasaki M, Shibata E, Kanbara Y, Ehara S. Enhancement effects and relaxivities of gadolinium-DTPA at 1.5 versus 3 Tesla: a phantom study. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2005;4:145–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parker GJ, Roberts C, Macdonald A, Buonaccorsi GA, Cheung S, Buckley DL, et al. Experimentally-derived functional form for a population-averaged high-temporal-resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2006;56:993–1000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, Evelhoch JL, Henderson E, Knopp MV, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10:223–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murase K. Efficient method for calculating kinetic parameters using T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2004;51:858–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hamlett A, Ryan L, Wolfinger R. On the use of PROC MIXED to estimate correlation in the presence of repeated measures. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2004. paper 198-29.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Silvera SS, Aidi HE, Rudd JH, Mani V, Yang L, Farkouh M, et al. Multimodality imaging of atherosclerotic plaque activity and composition using FDG-PET/CT and MRI in carotid and femoral arteries. Atherosclerosis. 2009;207:139–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kwee RM, Teule GJ, van Oostenbrugge RJ, Mess WH, Prins MH, van der Geest RJ, et al. Multimodality imaging of carotid artery plaques: 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Stroke. 2009;40:3718–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cyran CC, Sourbron S, Bochmann K, Habs M, Pfefferkorn T, Rominger A, et al. Quantification of supra-aortic arterial wall inflammation in patients with arteritis using high resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: initial results in correlation to [18F]-FDG PET/CT. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:594–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taqueti V, Carli MD, Jerosch-Herold M, Sukhova G, Murthy V, Folco E, et al. Increased microvascular blood flow and permeability associates with FDG signal in human atheroma. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(13):E1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Minchenko A, Leshchinsky I, Opentanova I, Sang N, Srinivas V, Armstead V, et al. Hypoxia-inducible factor-1-mediated expression of the 6-phosphofructo-2-kinase/fructose-2,6-bisphosphatase-3 (PFKFB3) gene. Its possible role in the Warburg effect. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:6183–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eltzschig HK, Carmeliet P. Hypoxia and inflammation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:656–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moreno PR, Purushothaman KR, Fuster V, Echeverri D, Truszczynska H, Sharma SK, et al. Plaque neovascularization is increased in ruptured atherosclerotic lesions of human aorta: implications for plaque vulnerability. Circulation. 2004;110:2032–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fuster V, Moreno PR, Fayad ZA, Corti R, Badimon JJ. Atherothrombosis and high-risk plaque: part I: evolving concepts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:937–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ribatti D, Levi-Schaffer F, Kovanen PT. Inflammatory angiogenesis in atherogenesis – a double-edged sword. Ann Med. 2008;40:606–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Folco EJ, Sheikine Y, Rocha VZ, Christen T, Shvartz E, Sukhova GK, et al. Hypoxia but not inflammation augments glucose uptake in human macrophages: implications for imaging atherosclerosis with 18fluorine-labeled 2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:603–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kawaguchi T, Veech RL, Uyeda K. Regulation of energy metabolism in macrophages during hypoxia. Roles of fructose 2,6-bisphosphate and ribose 1,5-bisphosphate. J Biol Chem. 2001;276:28554–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Anand RJ, Gribar SC, Li J, Kohler JW, Branca MF, Dubowski T, et al. Hypoxia causes an increase in phagocytosis by macrophages in a HIF-1alpha-dependent manner. J Leukoc Biol. 2007;82:1257–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Leeper-Woodford SK, Detmer K. Acute hypoxia increases alveolar macrophage tumor necrosis factor activity and alters NF-kappaB expression. Am J Physiol. 1999;276:L909–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moulton KS. Angiogenesis in atherosclerosis: gathering evidence beyond speculation. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2006;17:548–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pedersen SF, Graebe M, Hag AM, Hoejgaard L, Sillesen H, Kjaer A. Microvessel density but not neoangiogenesis is associated with 18F-FDG uptake in human atherosclerotic carotid plaques. Mol Imaging Biol. 2012;14:384–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yankeelov TE, Peterson TE, Abramson RG, Izquierdo-Garcia D, Arlinghaus LR, Li X, et al. Simultaneous PET-MRI in oncology: a solution looking for a problem? Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30:1342–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Torigian DA, Zaidi H, Kwee TC, Saboury B, Udupa JK, Cho ZH, et al. PET/MR imaging: technical aspects and potential clinical applications. Radiology. 2013;267:26–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Calcagno
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sarayu Ramachandran
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Izquierdo-Garcia
    • 3
  • Venkatesh Mani
    • 1
    • 2
  • Antoine Millon
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Rosenbaum
    • 4
  • Ahmed Tawakol
    • 5
  • Mark Woodward
    • 6
  • Jan Bucerius
    • 7
    • 8
    • 9
  • Erin Moshier
    • 10
  • James Godbold
    • 10
  • David Kallend
    • 11
  • Michael E. Farkouh
    • 12
    • 13
  • Valentin Fuster
    • 12
    • 14
  • James H. F. Rudd
    • 15
  • Zahi A. Fayad
    • 1
    • 2
    • 12
    Email author
  1. 1.Translational and Molecular Imaging InstituteMount Sinai School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyMount Sinai School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical ImagingHarvard University - MIT - Massachusetts General HospitalCharlestownUSA
  4. 4.Hopital Pitié SalpétrièreParisFrance
  5. 5.Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  6. 6.George InstituteUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  7. 7.Department of Nuclear MedicineMaastricht University Medical CenterMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  8. 8.Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM)MaastrichtThe Netherlands
  9. 9.Department of Nuclear MedicineRheinisch-Westfaelische Technische Hochschule AachenAachenGermany
  10. 10.Biostatistics Shared Research FacilityMount Sinai School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  11. 11.F. Hoffmann-La Roche LtdBaselSwitzerland
  12. 12.Cardiovascular InstituteMount Sinai School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  13. 13.Peter Munk Cardiac Centre and Li Ka Shing Knowledge InstituteTorontoCanada
  14. 14.The Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares (CNIC)MadridSpain
  15. 15.Division of Cardiovascular MedicineUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations