Does whole-body Patlak 18F-FDG PET imaging improve lesion detectability in clinical oncology?

  • Guillaume Fahrni
  • Nicolas A. KarakatsanisEmail author
  • Giulia Di Domenicantonio
  • Valentina Garibotto
  • Habib ZaidiEmail author
Nuclear Medicine



Single-pass whole-body (WB) 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is routinely employed for the clinical assessment of malignant, infectious, and inflammatory diseases. Our aim in this study is the systematic clinical assessment of lesion detectability in multi-pass WB parametric imaging enabling direct imaging of the highly quantitative 18F-FDG influx rate constant Ki, as a complement to standard-of-care standardized uptake value (SUV) imaging for a range of oncologic studies.


We compared SUV and Ki images of 18 clinical studies of different oncologic indications (lesion characterization and staging) including standard-of-care SUV and dynamic WB PET protocols in a single session. The comparison involved both the visual assessment and the quantitative evaluation of SUVmean, SUVmax, Kimean, Kimax, tumor-to-background ratio (TBRSUV, TBRKi), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNRSUV, CNRKi) quality metrics.


Overall, both methods provided good-quality images suitable for visual interpretation. A total of 118 lesions were detected, including 40 malignant (proven) and 78 malignant (unproven) lesions. Of those, 111 were detected on SUV and 108 on Ki images. One proven malignant lesion was detected only on Ki images whereas none of the proven malignant lesions was visible only on SUV images. The proven malignant lesions had overall higher Ki TBR and CNR scores. One unproven lesion, which was later confirmed as benign, was detected only on the SUV images (false-positive). Overall, our results from 40 proven malignant lesions suggested improved sensitivity (from 92.5 to 95%) and accuracy (from 90.24 to 95.12%) and potentially enhanced specificity with Ki over SUV imaging.


Oncologic WB Patlak Ki imaging may achieve equivalent or superior lesion detectability with reduced false-positive rates when complementing standard-of-care SUV imaging.

Key Points

• The whole-body spatio-temporal distribution of 18 F-FDG uptake may reveal clinically useful information on oncologic diseases to complement the standard-of-care SUV metric.

• Parametric imaging resulted in less false-positive indications of non-specific 18 F-FDG uptake relative to SUV.

• Parametric imaging may achieve equivalent or superior 18 F-FDG lesion detectability than standard-of-care SUV imaging in oncology.


Positron emission tomography Molecular imaging Tumors 





Computed tomography




Image-derived input function


Left ventricle


Positron emission tomography


Positron emission tomography/computed tomography


Region of interest


Standardized uptake value




Volume of interest





This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation under grant SNFN 320030_176052 and the Swiss Cancer Research Foundation under Grant KFS-3855-02-2016.


This study has received funding by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards


The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Habib Zaidi.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.


• prospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2018_5966_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.8 mb)
Supplementary Figure 1 (DOCX 2869 kb)


  1. 1.
    Gambhir SS (2002) Molecular imaging of cancer with positron emission tomography. Nat Rev Cancer 2:683–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M, Schelbert HR (2007) Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006. J Nucl Med 48:78S–788SGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huang SC (2000) Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value. Nucl Med Biol 27:643–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boellaard R (2011) Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med 52(Suppl 2):93S–100SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zaidi H, Karakatsanis N (2018) Towards enhanced PET quantification in clinical oncology. Br J Radiol 91:20170508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strauss LG, Klippel S, Pan L, Schonleben K, Haberkorn U, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A (2007) Assessment of quantitative FDG PET data in primary colorectal tumours: which parameters are important with respect to tumour detection? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:868–877Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freedman NM, Sundaram SK, Kurdziel K et al (2003) Comparison of SUV and Patlak slope for monitoring of cancer therapy using serial PET scans. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gupta N, Gill H, Graeber G, Bishop H, Hurst J, Stephens T (1998) Dynamic positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in differentiation of benign from malignant lung/mediastinal lesions. Chest 114:1105–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tixier F, Vriens D, Cheze-Le Rest C et al (2016) Comparison of tumor uptake heterogeneity characterization between static and parametric 18F-FDG PET images in non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 57:1033–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang G, Qi J (2013) Direct estimation of kinetic parametric images for dynamic PET. Theranostics 3:802–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Veronese M, Rizzo G, Bertoldo A, Turkheimer FE (2016) Spectral analysis of dynamic PET studies: a review of 20 years of method developments and applications. Comput Math Methods Med 2016:7187541Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kotasidis F, Tsoumpas C, Rahmim A (2014) Advanced kinetic modelling strategies: towards adoption in clinical PET imaging. Clin Transl Imaging 2:219–237Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang J, Wang R, Fan Y et al (2017) Application of quantitative dynamic whole-body 18FDG-PET/CT in the differential diagnosis of pulmonary nodules [abstract]. J Nucl Med 58:86Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Epelbaum R, Frenkel A, Haddad R et al (2013) Tumor aggressiveness and patient outcome in cancer of the pancreas assessed by dynamic 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 54:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strauss LG, Koczan D, Klippel S et al (2013) Dynamic PET with (18)F-Deoxyglucose (FDG) and quantitative assessment with a two-tissue compartment model reflect the activity of glucose transporters and hexokinases in patients with colorectal tumors. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 3:417–424PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wangerin KA, Muzi M, Peterson LM et al (2017) A virtual clinical trial comparing static versus dynamic PET imaging in measuring response to breast cancer therapy. Phys Med Biol 62:3639–3655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patlak CS, Blasberg RG (1985) Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data. Generalizations. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 5:584–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Slifstein M, Laruelle M (2001) Models and methods for derivation of in vivo neuroreceptor parameters with PET and SPECT reversible radiotracers. Nucl Med Biol 28:595–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bentourkia M, Zaidi H (2007) Tracer kinetic modeling in PET. PET Clin 2:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rahmim A, Lodge MA, Karakatsanis NA et al (2018) Dynamic whole-body PET imaging: principles, potentials and applications. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (in press).
  21. 21.
    Jakoby BW, Bercier Y, Watson CA, Bendriem B, Townsend DW (2009) Performance characteristics of a new LSO PET/CT scanner with extended axial field-of-view and PSF reconstruction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 56:633–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Surti S (2015) Update on time-of-flight PET imaging. J Nucl Med 56:98–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rahmim A, Qi J, Sossi V (2013) Resolution modeling in PET imaging: theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls. Med Phys 40:064301–064315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karakatsanis NA, Lodge MA, Tahari AK, Zhou Y, Wahl RL, Rahmim A (2013) Dynamic whole-body PET parametric imaging: I. Concept, acquisition protocol optimization and clinical application. Phys Med Biol 58:7391–7418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karakatsanis NA, Lodge MA, Zhou Y, Wahl RL, Rahmim A (2013) Dynamic whole-body PET parametric imaging: II. Task-oriented statistical estimation. Phys Med Biol 58:7419–7445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Karakatsanis NA, Zhou Y, Lodge MA et al (2015) Generalized whole-body Patlak parametric imaging for enhanced quantification in clinical PET. Phys Med Biol 60:8643–8673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karakatsanis NA, Casey ME, Lodge MA, Rahmim A, Zaidi H (2016) Whole-body direct 4D parametric PET imaging employing nested generalized Patlak expectation-maximization reconstruction. Phys Med Biol 61:5456–5485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhu W, Li Q, Bai B, Conti PS, Leahy RM (2014) Patlak image estimation from dual time-point list-mode PET data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 33:913–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Karakatsanis N, Lodge M, Zhou Y et al (2015) Novel multi-parametric SUV/Patlak FDG-PET whole-body imaging framework for routine application to clinical oncology [abstract]. J Nucl Med 56:625Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Karakatsanis NA, Lodge MA, Rahmim A, Zaidi H (2014) Introducing time-of-flight and resolution recovery image reconstruction to whole-body PET parametric imaging. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), Seattle, WA, 8–15 November 2014Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tomasi G, Kimberley S, Rosso L, Aboagye E, Turkheimer F (2012) Double-input compartmental modeling and spectral analysis for the quantification of positron emission tomography data in oncology. Phys Med Biol 57:1889–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van der Weerdt AP, Klein LJ, Boellaard R, Visser CA, Visser FC, Lammertsma AA (2001) Image-derived input functions for determination of MRGlu in cardiac (18)F-FDG PET scans. J Nucl Med 42:1622–1629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhuang M, Karakatsanis NA, Dierckx RAJO, Zaidi H (2018) Quantitative analysis of heterogeneous 18F-FDG static (SUV) vs. Patlak (Ki) whole-body PET imaging using different segmentation methods: a simulation study. Mol Imaging Biol (in press).
  34. 34.
    Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Georgoulias V, Eisenhut M et al (2006) Quantitative assessment of SSTR2 expression in patients with non-small cell lung cancer using (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET and comparison with (18)F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:823–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular ImagingGeneva University HospitalGenevaSwitzerland
  2. 2.Division of Radiopharmaceutical Sciences, Department of RadiologyWeill Cornell Medical College of Cornell UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  4. 4.Geneva University NeurocenterUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  5. 5.Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular ImagingUniversity of GroningenGroningenNetherlands
  6. 6.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations