Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The feasibility of ultralow-activity 18F-FDG dynamic PET imaging in lung adenocarcinoma patients through total-body PET/CT scanner

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To explore the feasibility of ultralow-activity 18F-FDG total-body dynamic PET imaging for clinical practice in patients with lung adenocarcinoma.

Methods

Eight of 18 patients were randomly injected with 18F-FDG with full activity (3.7 MBq/kg) for total-body dynamic PET imaging, while 10 received one-tenth activity (0.37 MBq/kg). The generated time-to-activity curves (TACs) according to the regions of interest (ROIs) were processed by PMOD through standard FDG two-tissue compartment model fitting. The kinetic constant rates (K1, K2, K3, and Ki), radiation dose, prompt counts, and data storage size were analysed between the full- and ultralow-activity groups. The SUVmax-Tumour/SUVmax-Liver and SUVmax-Tumour/SUVmax-Muscle on static PET images were also assessed.

Results

Each of the fitted models has a satisfactory goodness-of-fit with R2 greater than 0.9 except 3 (3/234) in ultralow-activity group, where one in pancreas (R2 = 0.851), another one in muscle (R2 = 0.868), and the third one in bone marrow (R2 = 0.895). All the fitted models in the full-activity group had a better goodness-of-fit than those in the ultralow-activity group. However, no significant differences were found in any of the kinetic metrics or image quality between the two groups except in the reduction of radiation dose and data storage size.

Conclusions

The 10 × reduction of injected 18F-FDG could achieve comparable kinetic metrics and T/N ratios by total-body dynamic PET imaging in lung adenocarcinoma patients. Ultralow-activity total-body PET imaging is feasible for clinical practice in oncological patients without obesity, especially in dynamic PET scanning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(2):328–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(3):480–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bosch KD, Chicklore S, Cook GJ, et al. Staging FDG PET-CT changes management in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma who are eligible for radical treatment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47(4):759–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Broccoli A, Nanni C, Cappelli A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of positron emission tomography/computed tomography-driven biopsy for the diagnosis of lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47(13):3058–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Alberts I, Hunermund JN, Prenosil G, et al. Clinical performance of long axial field of view PET/CT: a head-to-head intra-individual comparison of the biograph vision quadra with the biograph vision PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(8):2395–404.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Viswanath V, Daube Witherspoon ME, Karp JS, et al. Numerical observer study of lesion detectability for a long axial field-of-view whole-body PET imager using the PennPET explorer. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(3): 035002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Xiao J, Yu H, Sui X, et al. Can the BMI-based dose regimen be used to reduce injection activity and to obtain a constant image quality in oncological patients by (18)F-FDG total-body PET/CT imaging? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;49(1):269–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hu P, Zhang Y, Yu H, et al. Total-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT scan in oncology patients: how fast could it be? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(8):2384–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang Y, Hu P, Wu R, et al. The image quality, lesion detectability, and acquisition time of (18)F-FDG total-body PET/CT in oncological patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47(11):2507–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cherry SR, Jones T, Karp JS, et al. Total-body PET: maximizing sensitivity to create new opportunities for clinical research and patient care. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(1):3–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang X, Badawi RD, Cherry SR, et al. Theoretical study of the benefit of long axial field-of-view PET on region of interest quantification. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(13):135010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Cherry SR, Badawi RD, Karp JS, et al. Total-body imaging: transforming the role of positron emission tomography. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9(381):eaaf6169.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Surti S, Karp JS. Impact of detector design on imaging performance of a long axial field-of-view, whole-body PET scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(13):5343–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Tan H, Sui X, Yin H, et al. Total-body PET/CT using half-dose FDG and compared with conventional PET/CT using full-dose FDG in lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(6):1966–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu G, Hu P, Yu H, et al. Ultra-low-activity total-body dynamic PET imaging allows equal performance to full-activity PET imaging for investigating kinetic metrics of (18)F-FDG in healthy volunteers. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(8):2373–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Warburg O, Wind F, Negelein E. The metabolism of tumors in the body. J Gen Physiol. 1927;8(6):519–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Gupta N, Gill H, Graeber G, et al. Dynamic positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in differentiation of benign from malignant lung/mediastinal lesions. Chest. 1998;114(4):1105–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yang M, Lin Z, Xu Z, et al. Influx rate constant of (18)F-FDG increases in metastatic lymph nodes of non-small cell lung cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47(5):1198–208.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Romer W, Hanauske AR, Ziegler S, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood. 1998;91(12):4464–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wahl RL, Zasadny K, Helvie M, et al. Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(11):2101–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang X, Xie Z, Berg E, et al. Total-body dynamic reconstruction and parametric imaging on the uEXPLORER. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(2):285–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang X, Zhou J, Cherry SR, et al. Quantitative image reconstruction for total-body PET imaging using the 2-meter long EXPLORER scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(6):2465–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu G, Xu H, Hu P, et al. Kinetic metrics of (18)F-FDG in normal human organs identified by systematic dynamic total-body positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(8):2363–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wahl LM, Asselin MC, Nahmias C. Regions of interest in the venous sinuses as input functions for quantitative PET. J Nucl Med. 1999;40(10):1666–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Akaihe H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr. 1974;19:716–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Akaihe H. An information criterion (AIC). Math Sci. 1976;14:5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat. 1978;6(2):461–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. de Geus-Oei LF, van Krieken JH, Aliredjo RP, et al. Biological correlates of FDG uptake in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2007;55(1):79–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kimura Y, Naganawa M, Shidahara M, et al. PET kinetic analysis –pitfalls and a solution for the Logan plot. Ann Nucl Med. 2007;21(1):1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schaefferkoetter JD, Yan J, Townsend DW, et al. Initial assessment of image quality for low-dose PET: evaluation of lesion detectability. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(14):5543–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wu Y, Feng T, Shen Y, et al. Total-body parametric imaging using the Patlak model: feasibility of reduced scan time. Med Phys. 2022;49(7):4529–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study is supported by Shanghai Municipal Key Clinical Specialty Project (shslczdzk03401), Clinical Research Plan of SHDC (SHDC2020CR3079B), Science and Technology Committee of Shanghai Municipality(20DZ2201800), Special Fund for Clinical Research of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University(2020ZSLC63), The Youth Medical Talents-Medical Imaging Practitioner Program of Shanghai “Rising Stars of Medical Talent” Youth Development Program (SHWRS [2020]087), The National Natural Science Foundation of China (82001863), and the Shanghai Sailing Program (19YF1408200).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Jing Lv, Hongyan Yin, Haojun Yu, Guobing Liu & Hongcheng Shi

  2. Nuclear Medicine Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Jing Lv, Hongyan Yin, Haojun Yu, Guobing Liu & Hongcheng Shi

  3. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Jing Lv, Hongyan Yin, Haojun Yu, Guobing Liu & Hongcheng Shi

Authors
  1. Jing Lv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hongyan Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haojun Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guobing Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hongcheng Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hongcheng Shi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lv, J., Yin, H., Yu, H. et al. The feasibility of ultralow-activity 18F-FDG dynamic PET imaging in lung adenocarcinoma patients through total-body PET/CT scanner. Ann Nucl Med 36, 887–896 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-022-01772-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-022-01772-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation