Advertisement

QModeling: a Multiplatform, Easy-to-Use and Open-Source Toolbox for PET Kinetic Analysis

  • Francisco J. López-González
  • José Paredes-Pacheco
  • Karl Thurnhofer-Hemsi
  • Carlos Rossi
  • Manuel Enciso
  • Daniel Toro-Flores
  • Belén Murcia-Casas
  • Antonio L. Gutiérrez-Cardo
  • Núria Roé-Vellvé
Software Original Article
  • 210 Downloads

Abstract

Kinetic modeling is at the basis of most quantification methods for dynamic PET data. Specific software is required for it, and a free and easy-to-use kinetic analysis toolbox can facilitate routine work for clinical research. The relevance of kinetic modeling for neuroimaging encourages its incorporation into image processing pipelines like those of SPM, also providing preprocessing flexibility to match the needs of users. The aim of this work was to develop such a toolbox: QModeling. It implements four widely-used reference-region models: Simplified Reference Tissue Model (SRTM), Simplified Reference Tissue Model 2 (SRTM2), Patlak Reference and Logan Reference. A preliminary validation was also performed: The obtained parameters were compared with the gold standard provided by PMOD, the most commonly-used software in this field. Execution speed was also compared, for time-activity curve (TAC) estimation, model fitting and image generation. QModeling has a simple interface, which guides the user through the analysis: Loading data, obtaining TACs, preprocessing the model for pre-evaluation, generating parametric images and visualizing them. Relative differences between QModeling and PMOD in the parameter values are almost always below 10−8. The SRTM2 algorithm yields relative differences from 10−3 to 10−5 when \( {k}_2^{\prime } \) is not fixed, since different, validated methods are used to fit this parameter. The new toolbox works efficiently, with execution times of the same order as those of PMOD. Therefore, QModeling allows applying reference-region models with reliable results in efficient computation times. It is free, flexible, multiplatform, easy-to-use and open-source, and it can be easily expanded with new models.

Keywords

Kinetic analysis PET Parametric images SRTM Patlak QModeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Francisco J. López-González is funded by a grant (PTA2014-09677-I) from the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness under the Technical Support Staff (PTA) program.

Karl Thurnhofer-Hemsi and José Paredes-Pacheco are funded by PhD scholarships (FPU15/06512 and FPU16/05108, respectively) from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport under the FPU program.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bartmann, H., Fuest, C., La Fougere, C., Xiong, G., Just, T., Schlichtiger, J., Winter, P., Böning, G., Wängler, B., Pekcec, A., Soerensen, J., Bartenstein, P., Cumming, P., & Potschka, H. (2010). Imaging of P-glycoprotein–mediated pharmacoresistance in the hippocampus: Proof-of-concept in a chronic rat model of temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia, 51, 1780–1790.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bullich, S., Cot, A., Gallego, J., Gunn, R. N., Suárez, M., Pavía, J., Ros, D., Laruelle, M., & Catafau, A. M. (2010). Impact of scatter correction on D2 receptor occupancy measurements using 123I-IBZM SPECT: Comparison to 11C-Raclopride PET. NeuroImage, 50(4), 1511–1518.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Burger, C., & Buck, A. (1997). Requirements and implementation of a flexible kinetic modeling tool. J Nucl Med, 38(11), 1818–1823.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Coello, C., Fisk, M., Mohan, D., Wilson, F. J., Brown, A. P., Polkey, M. I., Wilkinson, I., Tal-Singer, R., Murphy, P. S., Cheriyan, J., & Gunn, R. N. (2017). Quantitative analysis of dynamic 18F-FDG PET/CT for measurement of lung inflammation. EJNMMI Res, 7(1), 47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Fang, Y.-H. D., Asthana, P., Salinas, C., Huang, H.-M., & Muzic, R. F. (2010). Integrated software environment based on COMKAT for analyzing tracer pharmacokinetics with molecular imaging. J Nucl Med, 51(1), 77–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Frankle, W. G., Slifstein, M., Gunn, R. N., Huang, Y., Hwang, D.-R., Darr, E. A., Narendan, R., Abi-Dargham, A., & Laruelle, M. (2006). Estimation of serotonin transporter parameters with 11C-DASB in healthy humans: Reproducibility and comparison of methods. J Nucl Med, 47(5), 815–826.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Grotegerd, D., Redlich, R., Almeida, J. R. C., Riemenschneider, M., Kugel, H., Arolt, V., & Dannlowski, U. (2014). MANIA—A pattern classification toolbox for neuroimaging data. Neuroinformatics, 12(3), 471–486.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gunn, R. N., Lammertsma, A. A., Hume, S. P., & Cunningham, V. J. (1997). Parametric imaging of ligand-receptor binding in PET using a simplified reference region model. NeuroImage, 6(4), 279–287.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gunn, R., Coello, C., & Searle, G. (2016). Molecular imaging and kinetic analysis toolbox (MIAKAT) - a quantitative software package for the analysis of PET neuroimaging data. J Nucl Med, 57(supplement_2), 1928.Google Scholar
  10. Keator, D. B., Gadde, S., Grethe, J. S., Taylor, D. V., & Potkin, S. G. (2006). A general XML schema and SPM toolbox for storage of neuro-imaging results and anatomical labels. Neuroinformatics, 4(2), 199–212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Keramida, G., Anagnostopoulos, C. D., & Peters, A. M. (2017). The extent to which standardized uptake values reflect FDG phosphorylation in the liver and spleen as functions of time after injection of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose. EJNMMI Res, 7(1), 13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Klumpers, U. M. H., Veltman, D. J., Boellaard, R., Comans, E. F., Zuketto, C., Yaqub, M., & Lammertsma, A. A. (2007). Comparison of plasma input and reference tissue models for Analysing [11C]flumazenil studies. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 28(3), 579–587.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lammertsma, A. A., & Hume, S. P. (1996). Simplified reference tissue model for PET receptor studies. NeuroImage, 4(3), 153–158.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lammertsma, A. A., Bench, C. J., Hume, S. P., Osman, S., Gunn, K., Brooks, D. J., & Frackowiak, R. S. (1996). Comparison of methods for analysis of clinical [11C]raclopride studies. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 16(1), 42–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Logan, J., Fowler, J. S., Volkow, N. D., Wang, G. J., Ding, Y. S., & Alexoff, D. L. (1996). Distribution volume ratios without blood sampling from graphical analysis of PET data. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 16(5), 834–840.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lopes, I., Vállez, D., Parente, A., Doorduin, J., Dierckx, R., Marques da Silva, A., Koole, M., Willemsen, A., & Boellaard, R. (2017). Pharmacokinetic modeling of [11C]flumazenil kinetics in the rat brain. EJNMMI Res, 7(17), 1–12.Google Scholar
  17. Maldjian, J. A., Laurienti, P. J., Kraft, R. A., & Burdette, J. H. (2003). An automated method for neuroanatomic and cytoarchitectonic atlas-based interrogation of fMRI data sets. NeuroImage, 19(3), 1233–1239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Muzic, R. F. J., & Cornelius, S. (2001). COMKAT: Compartment model kinetic analysis tool. J Nucl Med, 42(4), 636–645.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Oikonen, V., Johansson, J., Liukko, K., Merisaari, H., Alenius, S., Laakkonen, C., & Krais, R. (n.d.). TPCCLIB source code documentation. Turku PET Centre. http://www.turkupetcentre.net/petanalysis/tpcclib/tpcclib-doc/index.html. Accessed 10 July 2017.
  20. Olsson, H., Halldin, C., & Farde, L. (2004). Differentiation of extrastriatal dopamine D2 receptor density and affinity in the human brain using PET. NeuroImage, 22(2), 794–803.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Patlak, C. S., & Blasberg, R. G. (1985). Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data. Generalizations. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 5(4), 584–590.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Patlak, C. S., Blasberg, R. G., & Fenstermacher, J. D. (1983). Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 3(1), 1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. PMOD Technologies. (2012). PMOD Pixel-wise Modeling (PXMOD) Version 3.4.Resource document. PMOD Technologies. http://www.pmod.com/files/download/v34/doc/PDF/PXMOD.pdf. Accessed10 July 2017.
  24. PMOD Technologies (2016). PMOD Software Release Notes Version 3.6. Maintenance Builds of Release 3.5, p. 11. Resource document. PMOD Technologies. http://www.doc36.pmod.com/PDF/ReleaseNotes.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2017.
  25. Rodriguez-Vieitez, E., Leuzy, A., Chiotis, K., Saint-Aubert, L., Wall, A., & Nordberg, A. (2017). Comparability of [18F]THK5317and [11C]PIB blood flow proxy images with [18F]FDG positron emission tomography in Alzheimer’s disease. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 37(2), 740–749.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Salinas, C. A., Searle, G. E., & Gunn, R. N. (2015). The simplified reference tissue model: Model assumption violations and their impact on binding potential. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 35, 304–311.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Schain, M., Fazio, P., Mrzljak, L., Amini, N., Al-Tawil, N., Fitzer-Attas, C., & Varrone, A. (2017). Revisiting the Logan plot to account for non-negligible blood volume in brain tissue. EJNMMI Res, 7(1), 66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Schrouff, J., Rosa, M. J., Rondina, J. M., Marquand, A. F., Chu, C., Ashburner, J., Philips, C., Richiardi, J., & Mourão-Miranda, J. (2013). PRoNTo: Pattern recognition for neuroimaging toolbox. Neuroinformatics, 11(3), 319–337.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Sérrière, S., Tauber, C., Vercouillie, J., Guilloteau, D., Deloye, J., Garreau, L., Galineau, L., & Chalon, S. (2014). In vivo PET quantification of the dopamine transporter in rat brain with [18F]LBT-999. Nucl Med Biol, 41(1), 106–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Shen, J. (2014). Tools for NIfTI and ANALYZE image. File Exchange MathWorks. https://es.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/8797-tools-for-nifti-and-analyze-image. Accessed 10 July 2017.
  31. Tabelow, K., Mohammadi, S., Weiskopf, N., & Polzehl, J. (2015). POAS4SPM: A toolbox for SPM to Denoise diffusion MRI data. Neuroinformatics, 13(1), 19–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. TKMF Program (n.d.). Department of Molecular & Medical Pharmacology.UCLA School of Medicine. https://dragon.nuc.ucla.edu/modelfitting/modelfit.htmlAccessed 10 July 2017.
  33. Wienhard, K. (2002). Measurement of glucose consumption using [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose. Methods, 27(3), 218–225.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wu, Y., & Carson, R. E. (2002). Noise reduction in the simplified reference tissue model for neuroreceptor functional imaging. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 22(12), 1440–1452.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Yo-Han, J., Jeong-Hee, K., Young-Don, S., Hang-Keun, K., Yeon-Jeong, S., Sang-Yoon, L. & Jong-Hoon, K. (2017). The relationship between excitement symptom severity and extrastriatal dopamine D2/3 receptor availability in patients with schizophrenia: a high-resolution PET study with [18F] fallypride. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 1–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco J. López-González
    • 1
    • 2
  • José Paredes-Pacheco
    • 1
    • 2
  • Karl Thurnhofer-Hemsi
    • 1
    • 3
  • Carlos Rossi
    • 3
  • Manuel Enciso
    • 3
  • Daniel Toro-Flores
    • 1
  • Belén Murcia-Casas
    • 4
  • Antonio L. Gutiérrez-Cardo
    • 1
    • 5
  • Núria Roé-Vellvé
    • 1
  1. 1.Molecular Imaging Unit, Centro de Investigaciones Médico-Sanitarias, Fundación General de la Universidad de MálagaMálagaSpain
  2. 2.Molecular Imaging and Medical Physics Group, Department of Psychiatry, Radiology and Public HealthUniversidade de CompostelaGaliciaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Computer Languages and Computer ScienceUniversidad de MálagaMálagaSpain
  4. 4.Internal MedicineHospital Virgen de la VictoriaMálagaSpain
  5. 5.Nuclear MedicineHospital Regional UniversitarioMálagaSpain

Personalised recommendations