Molecular Imaging Branch, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, 10 Center Drive, MSC-1026, Bethesda, MD, 20892-2035, USA,
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Apr;39(4):651-9. doi: 10.1007/s00259-011-2004-9. Epub 2012 Jan 10.
Quantitative neuroreceptor positron emission tomography (PET) studies often require arterial cannulation to measure input function. While population-based input function (PBIF) would be a less invasive alternative, it has only rarely been used in conjunction with neuroreceptor PET tracers. The aims of this study were (1) to validate the use of PBIF for 2-(18)F-fluoro-A-85380, a tracer for nicotinic receptors; (2) to compare the accuracy of measures obtained via PBIF to those obtained via blood-scaled image-derived input function (IDIF) from carotid arteries; and (3) to explore the possibility of using venous instead of arterial samples for both PBIF and IDIF.
Ten healthy volunteers underwent a dynamic 2-(18)F-fluoro-A-85380 brain PET scan with arterial and, in seven subjects, concurrent venous serial blood sampling. PBIF was obtained by averaging the normalized metabolite-corrected arterial input function and subsequently scaling each curve with individual blood samples. IDIF was obtained from the carotid arteries using a blood-scaling method. Estimated Logan distribution volume (V(T)) values were compared to the reference values obtained from arterial cannulation.
For all subjects, PBIF curves scaled with arterial samples were similar in shape and magnitude to the reference arterial input function. The Logan V(T) ratio was 1.00 ± 0.05; all subjects had an estimation error <10%. IDIF gave slightly less accurate results (V(T) ratio 1.03 ± 0.07; eight of ten subjects had an error <10%). PBIF scaled with venous samples yielded inaccurate results (V(T) ratio 1.13 ± 0.13; only three of seven subjects had an error <10%). Due to arteriovenous differences at early time points, IDIF could not be calculated using venous samples.
PBIF scaled with arterial samples accurately estimates Logan V(T) for 2-(18)F-fluoro-A-85380. Results obtained with PBIF were slightly better than those obtained with IDIF. Due to arteriovenous concentration differences, venous samples cannot be substituted for arterial samples.
定量神经受体正电子发射断层扫描(PET)研究通常需要动脉插管来测量输入函数。虽然基于人群的输入函数(PBIF)是一种侵入性较小的替代方法,但它很少与神经受体 PET 示踪剂一起使用。本研究的目的是:(1)验证 PBIF 用于烟碱受体示踪剂 2-(18)F-氟-A-85380 的使用;(2)比较通过 PBIF 和颈动脉血液标度图像衍生输入函数(IDIF)获得的测量值的准确性;(3)探索使用静脉而不是动脉样本进行 PBIF 和 IDIF 的可能性。
10 名健康志愿者进行了动态 2-(18)F-氟-A-85380 脑 PET 扫描,其中 7 名志愿者同时进行了动脉和静脉连续血液采样。通过平均归一化代谢校正的动脉输入函数并随后用个体血液样本对每个曲线进行缩放,获得 PBIF。IDIF 从颈动脉使用血液标度方法获得。将估计的 Logan 分布容积(V(T))值与从动脉插管获得的参考值进行比较。
对于所有受试者,用动脉样本标度的 PBIF 曲线在形状和幅度上与参考动脉输入函数相似。Logan V(T)比值为 1.00±0.05;所有受试者的估计误差<10%。IDIF 给出的结果稍不准确(V(T)比值 1.03±0.07;10 名受试者中有 8 名误差<10%)。用静脉样本标度的 PBIF 产生不准确的结果(V(T)比值 1.13±0.13;7 名受试者中有 3 名误差<10%)。由于早期时间点的动静脉差异,不能使用静脉样本计算 IDIF。
用动脉样本标度的 PBIF 准确估计 2-(18)F-氟-A-85380 的 Logan V(T)。通过 PBIF 获得的结果略优于通过 IDIF 获得的结果。由于动静脉浓度差异,不能用静脉样本代替动脉样本。