Quantitative preclinical PET imaging: opportunities and challenges

Kuntner, Claudia; Stout, David

doi:10.3389/fphy.2014.00012

Cited by 62 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 108 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 2 summarizes the main system specifications. A complete description of all the available preclinical hybrid systems is outside the focus of this review paper, please see [46,[61][62][63][64][65] for details.…”

Section: Preclinical Hybrid Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybrid Imaging: Instrumentation and Data Processing

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

State-of-the-art patient management frequently requires the use of non-invasive imaging methods to assess the anatomy, function or molecular-biological conditions of patients or study subjects. Such imaging methods can be singular, providing either anatomical or molecular information, or they can be combined, thus, providing "anato-metabolic" information. Hybrid imaging denotes image acquisitions on systems that physically combine complementary imaging modalities for an improved diagnostic accuracy and confidence as well as for increased patient comfort. The physical combination of formerly independent imaging modalities was driven by leading innovators in the field of clinical research and benefited from technological advances that permitted the operation of PET and MR in close physical proximity, for example. This review covers milestones of the development of various hybrid imaging systems for use in clinical practice and small-animal research. Special attention is given to technological advances that helped the adoption of hybrid imaging, as well as to introducing methodological concepts that benefit from the availability of complementary anatomical and biological information, such as new types of image reconstruction and data correction schemes. The ultimate goal of hybrid imaging is to provide useful, complementary and quantitative information during patient work-up. Hybrid imaging also opens the door to multi-parametric assessment of diseases, which will help us better understand the causes of various diseases that currently contribute to a large fraction of healthcare costs.

show abstract

Section: Preclinical Hybrid Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybrid Imaging: Instrumentation and Data Processing

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While there are numerous reports describing the performance characteristics of small animal PET scanners [4, 10] and review articles [1,2] describing the many factors that affect small animal PET studies, there are surprisingly few [3] that describe the accuracy of actual measurements made with these machines in “real” small animal imaging experiments. Moreover, results from formal small animal scanner performance tests, even when available, do not provide a full picture of the kind and magnitude of errors that occur in actual imaging experiments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While review articles are available that describe in detail virtually all confounding factors that can arise in general small animal imaging studies [1, 2], there is little direct, published experimental evidence regarding the accuracy of these methods when applied in actual small animal imaging experiments [3]. Moreover, PET imaging is also accompanied by practical complications that often slow data acquisition and analysis of these data, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of planar, PET and well-counter measurements of total tumor radioactivity in a mouse xenograft model

Green

Seidel

Williams

et al. 2017

Nuclear Medicine and Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Quantitative small animal radionuclide imaging studies are often carried out with the intention of estimating the total radioactivity content of various tissues such as the radioactivity content of mouse xenograft tumors exposed to putative diagnostic or therapeutic agents. We show that for at least one specific application, positron projection imaging (PPI) and PET yield comparable estimates of absolute total tumor activity and that both of these estimates are highly correlated with direct well-counting of these same tumors. These findings further suggest that in this particular application, PPI is a far more efficient data acquisition and processing methodology than PET. Methods Forty-one athymic mice were implanted with PC3 human prostate cancer cells transfected with PSMA (PC3 PSMA (+)) and one additional animal (for a total of 42) with a control blank vector (PC3 PSMA (−)). All animals were injected with [18F] DCFPyl, a ligand for the PC3 PSMA (+) receptor, and imaged for total tumor radioactivity with PET and PPI. The tumors were then removed, assayed by well counting for total radioactivity and the values between these methods intercompared. Results PET, PPI and well-counter estimates of total tumor radioactivity were highly correlated (R2 > 0.98) with regression line slopes near unity (0.95 < slope ≤ 1.02) and intercepts near zero (−0.001 MBq ≤ intercept ≤ 0.004 MBq). Conclusion Total mouse xenograft tumor radioactivity can be measured with PET or PPI with an accuracy comparable to well counting if certain experimental and pharmacokinetic conditions are met. In this particular application, PPI is significantly more efficient than PET in making these measurements. Animal Care Animal care was provided in accordance with the procedures outlined in the “Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” (National Research Council; 1996; National Academy Press; Washington, D.C.)

show abstract

“…The imaging community is currently undertaking efforts toward developing guidelines on microPET/CT acquisition and reconstruction methods [18,23,24]. While these guidelines admirably address animal handling and preparation, National Electric Manufactures Association (NEMA) testing and scanner quality control testing, there still remains a knowledge gap on evaluation and selection of preclinical PET/CT acquisition and reconstruction for routine use locally and across sites.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High Dose MicroCT Does Not Contribute Toward Improved MicroPET/CT Image Quantitative Accuracy and Can Limit Longitudinal Scanning of Small Animals

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Obtaining accurate quantitative measurements in preclinical Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) imaging is of paramount importance in biomedical research and helps supporting efficient translation of preclinical results to the clinic. The purpose of this study was two-fold: (1) to investigate the effects of different CT acquisition protocols on PET/CT image quality and data quantification; and (2) to evaluate the absorbed dose associated with varying CT parameters.Methods: An air/water quality control CT phantom, tissue equivalent material phantom, an in-house 3D printed phantom and an image quality PET/CT phantom were imaged using a Mediso nanoPET/CT scanner. Collected data was analyzed using PMOD software, VivoQuant software and National Electric Manufactures Association (NEMA) software implemented by Mediso. Measured Hounsfield Unit (HU) in collected CT images were compared to the known HU values and image noise was quantified. PET recovery coefficients (RC), uniformity and quantitative bias were also measured.Results: Only less than 2 and 1% of CT acquisition protocols yielded water HU values < −80 and air HU values < −840, respectively. Four out of 11 CT protocols resulted in more than 100 mGy absorbed dose. Different CT protocols did not impact PET uniformity and RC, and resulted in <4% overall bias relative to expected radioactive concentration.Conclusion: Preclinical CT protocols with increased exposure times can result in high absorbed doses to the small animals. These should be avoided, as they do not contributed toward improved microPET/CT image quantitative accuracy and could limit longitudinal scanning of small animals.

show abstract

Quantitative preclinical PET imaging: opportunities and challenges

Cited by 62 publications

References 108 publications

Hybrid Imaging: Instrumentation and Data Processing

Hybrid Imaging: Instrumentation and Data Processing

Comparison of planar, PET and well-counter measurements of total tumor radioactivity in a mouse xenograft model

High Dose MicroCT Does Not Contribute Toward Improved MicroPET/CT Image Quantitative Accuracy and Can Limit Longitudinal Scanning of Small Animals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About