Validation of image-derived input function using a long axial field of view PET/CT scanner for two different tracers

Abstract

Background Accurate image-derived input function (IDIF) from highly sensitive large axial field of view (LAFOV) PET/CT scanners could avoid the need of invasive blood sampling for kinetic modelling. The aim is to validate the use of IDIF for two kinds of tracers, 3 different IDIF locations and 9 different reconstruction settings. Methods Eight [18F]FDG and 10 [18F]DPA-714 scans were acquired respectively during 70 and 60 min on the Vision Quadra PET/CT system. PET images were reconstructed using various reconstruction settings. IDIFs were taken from ascending aorta (AA), descending aorta (DA), and left ventricular cavity (LV). The calibration factor (CF) extracted from the comparison between the IDIFs and the manual blood samples as reference was used for IDIFs accuracy and precision assessment. To illustrate the effect of various calibrated-IDIFs on Patlak linearization for [18F]FDG and Logan linearization for [18F]DPA-714, the same target time-activity curves were applied for each calibrated-IDIF. Results For [18F]FDG, the accuracy and precision of the IDIFs were high (mean CF ≥ 0.82, SD ≤ 0.06). Compared to the striatum influx (Ki) extracted using calibrated AA IDIF with the updated European Association of Nuclear Medicine Research Ltd. standard reconstruction (EARL2), Ki mean differences were < 2% using the other calibrated IDIFs. For [18F]DPA714, high accuracy of the IDIFs was observed (mean CF ≥ 0.86) except using absolute scatter correction, DA and LV (respectively mean CF = 0.68, 0.47 and 0.44). However, the precision of the AA IDIFs was low (SD ≥ 0.10). Compared to the distribution volume (VT) in a frontal region obtained using calibrated continuous arterial sampler input function as reference, VT mean differences were small using calibrated AA IDIFs (for example VT mean difference = -5.3% using EARL2), but higher using calibrated DA and LV IDIFs (respectively + 12.5% and + 19.1%). Conclusions For [18F]FDG, IDIF do not need calibration against manual blood samples. For [18F]DPA-714, AA IDIF can replace continuous arterial sampling for simplified kinetic quantification but only with calibration against arterial blood samples. The accuracy and precision of IDIF from LAFOV PET/CT system depend on tracer, reconstruction settings and IDIF VOI locations, warranting careful optimization.

Validation of cardiac image-derived input functions for functional PET quantification

“…Despite their potential, graphical methods have been shown to be potentially susceptible to bias [30], primarily influenced by the accuracy of estimating the later segments of the input functions. Incorporating blood samples for scaling scanner, has demonstrated that that accuracy of IDIF from larger blood pools varies depending on the tracer applied, necessitating validation for each tracer [31]. Our study contributes to these efforts by corroborating their conclusions regarding the highly accurate IDIF extraction of [ 18 F]FDG purposes can greatly improve the accuracy of the IDIF curves' tail [30].…”