Novel Method to Estimate Kinetic Microparameters from Dynamic Whole-Body Imaging in Regular-Axial Field-of-View PET Scanners
,
Abstract
Purpose: For Whole-Body (WB) kinetic modeling based on a typical PET scanner, a multi-pass multi-bed scanning protocol is necessary given the limited axial field-of-view. Such a protocol introduces loss of early-dynamics in Time-Activity Curves (TACs) and sparsity in TAC measurements, inducing uncertainty in parameter estimation when using Least-Squares Estimation (LSE) (i.e., common standard), especially for kinetic microparameters. We present a method to reliably estimate microparameters, enabling accurate parametric imaging, on regular-axial field-of-view PET scanners
Materials and Methods: Our method, denoted Parameter Combination-Driven Estimation (PCDE), relies on the generation of reference truth TAC database, and subsequently selected, the best parameter combination as the one arriving at TAC with the highest Total Similarity Score (TSS), focusing on the general image quality, overall visibility, and tumor detectability metrics. Our technique has two distinctive characteristics: 1) improved probability of having one-on-one mapping between early and late dynamics in TACs (the former missing from typical protocols), and 2) use of multiple aspects of TACs in the selection of best fits. To evaluate our method against conventional LSE, we plotted trade-off curves for noise and bias. In addition, the overall Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and spatial noise were calculated and compared. Furthermore, the Contrast-to-Noise Ratio (CNR) and Tumor-to-Background Ratio (TBR) were also calculated. We also tested our proposed method on patient data (18F-DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT scans) to further verify clinical applicability.
Results: Significantly improved general image quality performance was verified in microparametric images (e.g. noise-bias trade-off performance). The overall visibility and tumor detectability were also improved. Finally, for our patient studies, improved overall visibility and tumor detectability were demonstrated in mico parametric images, compared to the use of conventional parameter estimation.
Conclusion: The proposed method provides improved microkinetic parametric images compared to the common standard in terms of general image quality, overall visibility, and tumor detectability.
2- Rahmim A, Lodge MA, Karakatsanis NA, et al. Dynamic whole-body PET imaging: principles, potentials, and applications. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging.;46(2):501-518, (2019). doi:10.1007/s00259-018-4153-6
3- Dahibom M, Hoffman E, Hoh CK, et al. Whole-Body Positron Emission Tomography: Part I. Methods and Performance Characteristics.
4- Hustinx R, Bénard F, Alavi A. Whole-body FDG-PET imaging in the management of patients with cancer. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine.;32(1):35-46, (2002). doi:10.1053/snuc.2002.29272
5- Kubota K, Itoh M, Ozaki K, et al. Advantage of delayed whole-body FDG-PET imaging for tumor detection. Eur J Nucl Med.;28(6):696-703, (2001). doi:10.1007/s002590100537
6- Townsend DW. Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine.;38(3):152-166, (2008). doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2008.01.003
7- Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumor PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging.;37(1):181-200, (2010). doi:10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4
8- Karakatsanis NA, Lodge MA, Tahari AK, Zhou Y, Wahl RL, Rahmim A. Dynamic whole-body PET parametric imaging: I. Concept, acquisition protocol optimization, and clinical application. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58(20):7391-7418. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/58/20/7391
9- Hamberg LM, Hunter GJ, Alpert M, Choi NC, Babich JW, Fischman AJ. The Dose Uptake Ratio as an Index of Glucose Metabolism: Useful Parameter or Oversimplification?
10- Keyes JW. SUV: Standard Uptake or Silly Useless Value?
11- Huang (Henry) Sung-Cheng. Anatomy of SUV. Nuclear Medicine and Biology. 2000;27(7):643-646. doi:10.1016/S0969-8051(00)00155-4
12- Lodge MA, Lucas JD, Marsden PK, Cronin BF, O’Doherty MJ, Smith MA. A PET study of 18 FDG uptake in soft tissue masses. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 1999;26(1):22-30. doi:10.1007/s002590050355
13- Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Grossman HB, Francis IR, Clarke MF, Wahl RL. Germ Cell Tumor: Differentiation of Viable Tumor, Mature Teratoma, and Necrotic Tissue with FDG PET and Kinetic Modeling. Radiology.;211(1):249-256, (1999). doi:10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap16249
14- Karakatsanis NA, Lodge MA, Zhou Y, Wahl RL, Rahmim A. Dynamic whole-body PET parametric imaging: II. Task-oriented statistical estimation. Phys Med Biol.;58(20):7419-7445, (2013). doi:10.1088/0031-9155/58/20/7419
15- Segars WP, Sturgeon G, Mendonca S, Grimes J, Tsui BMW. 4D XCAT phantom for multimodality imaging research: 4D XCAT phantom for multimodality imaging research. Med Phys.;37(9):4902-4915, (2010). doi:10.1118/1.3480985
16- Liu G, Xu H, Hu P, et al. Kinetic metrics of 18F-FDG in normal human organs identified by systematic dynamic total-body positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging.;48(8):2363-2372, (2021). doi:10.1007/s00259-020-05124-y
17- Feng D, Huang SC, Wang X. Models for computer simulation studies of input functions for tracer kinetic modeling with positron emission tomography. International Journal of Bio-Medical Computing. 1993;32(2):95-110. doi:10.1016/0020-7101(93)90049-C
18- Häggström I, Beattie BJ, Schmidtlein CR. Dynamic PET simulator via tomographic emission projection for kinetic modeling and parametric image studies: Dynamic PET simulator for kinetic modeling studies. Med Phys. 2016;43(6Part1):3104-3116. doi:10.1118/1.4950883
19- Berthon B, Häggström I, Apte A, et al. PETSTEP: Generation of synthetic PET lesions for fast evaluation of segmentation methods. Physica Medica. 2015;31(8):969-980. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.07.139
20- Johnson ML, Faunt LM. [1] Parameter estimation by least-squares methods. In: Methods in Enzymology. Vol 210. Elsevier; 1992:1-37. doi:10.1016/0076-6879(92)10003-V
21- Johnson ML, Frasier SG. [16] Nonlinear least-squares analysis. In: Methods in Enzymology. Vol 117. Elsevier; 1985:301-342. doi:10.1016/S0076-6879(85)17018-7
22- Johnson ML. Why, when, and how biochemists should use least squares. Analytical Biochemistry. 1992;206(2):215-225. doi:10.1016/0003-2697(92)90356-C
23- Overall JE, Spiegel DK. Concerning least squares analysis of experimental data. Psychological Bulletin. 1969;72(5):311-322. doi:10.1037/h0028109
24- Chen S, Billings SA, Luo W. Orthogonal least squares methods and their application to non-linear system identification. International Journal of Control. 1989;50(5):1873-1896. doi:10.1080/00207178908953472
25- Constable CG. Parameter estimation in non-Gaussian noise. Geophys J Int. 1988;94(1):131-142. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1988.tb03433.x
26- Krikheli M, Leshem A. Finite sample performance of linear least squares estimation. Published online October 12, 2018. Accessed July 18, 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06380
27- Kueng R, Driscoll B, Manser P, Fix MK, Stampanoni M, Keller H. Quantification of local image noise variation in PET images for standardization of noise-dependent analysis metrics. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2017;3(2):025007. doi:10.1088/2057-1976/3/2/025007
28- Kraskov A, Stögbauer H, Grassberger P. Estimating mutual information. Phys Rev E. 2004;69(6):066138. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.69.066138
29- Bennasar M, Hicks Y, Setchi R. Feature selection using Joint Mutual Information Maximisation. Expert Systems with Applications. 2015;42(22):8520-8532. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.007
30- Sommariva S, Caviglia G, Sambuceti G, Piana M. Mathematical Models for FDG Kinetics in Cancer: A Review. Metabolites. 2021;11(8):519. doi:10.3390/metabo11080519
31- Patlak CS, Blasberg RG. Graphical Evaluation of Blood-to-Brain Transfer Constants from Multiple-Time Uptake Data. Generalizations. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1985;5(4):584-590. doi:10.1038/jcbfm.1985.87
32- Ashraf C, Pfaendtner J. Assessing the Performance of Various Stochastic Optimization Methods on Chemical Kinetic Modeling of Combustion. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2020;59(43):19212-19225. doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.0c04009
33- Sámano V, Tirado A, Félix G, Ancheyta J. Revisiting the importance of appropriate parameter estimation based on sensitivity analysis for developing kinetic models. Fuel. 2020;267:117113. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117113
34- Kadrmas DJ, Oktay MB. Generalized separable parameter space techniques for fitting 1K-5K serial compartment models: Separable parameter space compartment modeling. Med Phys. 2013;40(7):072502. doi:10.1118/1.4810937
35- Zhou Y, Ye W, Brašić JR, Wong DF. Multi-graphical analysis of dynamic PET. NeuroImage. 2010;49(4):2947-2957. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.028
36- Logan J. A review of graphical methods for tracer studies and strategies to reduce bias. Nuclear Medicine and Biology. 2003;30(8):833-844. doi:10.1016/S0969-8051(03)00114-8
37- Bao G, Schild D. Fast and Accurate Fitting and Filtering of Noisy Exponentials in Legendre Space. Brody JP, ed. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(3):e90500. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090500
38- Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, et al. Recommendations on the Use of 18 F-FDG PET in Oncology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(3):480-508. doi:10.2967/jnumed.107.047787
39- Rowe SP, Macura KJ, Mena E, et al. PSMA-Based [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT Is Superior to Conventional Imaging for Lesion Detection in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2016;18(3):411-419. doi:10.1007/s11307-016-0957-6
40- Verena A, Zhang Z, Kuo HT, et al. Synthesis and Preclinical Evaluation of Three Novel 68Ga-Labeled Bispecific PSMA/FAP-Targeting Tracers for Prostate Cancer Imaging. Molecules. 2023;28(3):1088. doi:10.3390/molecules28031088
41- Lau J, Pan J, Rousseau E, et al. Pharmacokinetics, radiation dosimetry, acute toxicity, and automated synthesis of [18F]AmBF3-TATE. EJNMMI Res. 2020;10(1):25. doi:10.1186/s13550-020-0611-9
42- Lee KN. Development of a novel method to estimate kinetic micro-parameters in dynamic whole-body PET imaging protocols. Published online 2023. doi:10.14288/1.0435736
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 13 No 1 (2026) | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/fbt.v13i1.20783 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Whole-Body Kinetic Modeling Microparameters Least Squares Estimation Parametric Imaging Image Quality Tumor Detectability | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
