Advertisement

Adjustment of vascular 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose uptake values over time through a modeling approach

  • Pavlos P. Kafouris
  • Iosif P. Koutagiar
  • Alexandros T. Georgakopoulos
  • Nikoletta K. Pianou
  • Marinos G. Metaxas
  • George M. Spyrou
  • Constantinos D. AnagnostopoulosEmail author
Original Paper
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

To develop and test a model predicting 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose ([18F]FDG) standardized uptake value (SUV) changes over time in the aorta and the superior vena cava (SVC). Maximum aortic SUV and mean SVC SUV were determined at two time points (T1 and T2) in the ascending (ASC), descending (DSC), abdominal (ABD) aorta, aortic arch (ARC) and SVC of patients who have undergone [18F]FDG PET/CT for clinical purposes. For SUV prediction at T2, linear and non-linear models of SUV difference for a given time change were developed in a derivation group. The results were tested in an independent validation group, whilst model reproducibility was tested in patients of the validation group who have undergone a second clinically indicated scan. Applying the linear model in the derivation group, there were no statistically significant differences in measurements obtained in the examined segments: mean differences ranged from 0 ± 0.10 in SVC to 0.01 ± 0.13 in ARC between measured and predicted SUV. In contrast, in the non-linear model, there were statistically significant differences in measurements, except in ARC, with mean differences ranging from 0.04 ± 0.14 in ARC to 0.28 ± 0.13 in ABD. In the validation group using the linear model, there were no statistically significant differences, with mean differences ranging from − 0.01 ± 0.08 in ASC to − 0.03 ± 0.11 in ABD. Regarding reproducibility, mean differences were no statistically significant, ranging from 0.004 ± 0.06 in ASC to − 0.02 ± 0.16 in ABD. We have developed a linear model allowing accurate and reproducible prediction of SUV changes over time in the aorta and SVC.

Keywords

Standardized uptake value [18F]FDG PET/CT Circulation time Cardiovascular imaging Delayed imaging 

Notes

Acknowledgements

George M. Spyrou is funded by the European Commission Research Executive Agency Grant BIORISE (No. 669026), under the Spreading Excellence, Widening Participation, Science with and for Society Framework. Pavlos’ Kafouris doctoral thesis is co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Social Fund - ESF) through the Operational Programme «Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning» in the context of the project «Strengthening Human Resources Research Potential via Doctorate Research» (OPS-5003404), implemented by the State Scholarships Foundation (ΙΚΥ).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Dweck MR, Chow MW, Joshi NV, Williams MC, Jones C, Fletcher AM et al (2012) Coronary arterial 18F-sodium fluoride uptake: a novel marker of plaque biology. J Am Coll Cardiol 59:1539–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menezes LJ, Kayani I, Ben-Haim S, Hutton B, Ell PJ, Groves AM (2010) What is the natural history of 18F-FDG uptake in arterial atheroma on PET/CT? Implications for imaging the vulnerable plaque. Atherosclerosis 211:136–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Myers KS, Rudd JH, Hailman EP, Bolognese JA, Burke J, Pinto CA et al (2012) Correlation between arterial FDG uptake and biomarkers in peripheral artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 5:38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kang S, Kyung C, Park JS, Kim S, Lee SP, Kim MK et al (2014) Subclinical vascular inflammation in subjects with normal weight obesity and its association with body fat: an 18F-FDG-PET/CT study. Cardiovasc Diabetol 13:70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huet P, Burg S, Le Guludec D, Hyafil F, Buvat I (2015) Variability and uncertainty of 18F-FDG PET imaging protocols for assessing inflammation in atherosclerosis: suggestions for improvement. J Nucl Med 56:552–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paquet N, Albert A, Foidart J, Hustinx R (2004) Within-patient variability of (18)F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues. J Nucl Med 45:784–788Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keyes JW (1995) SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med 36:1836–1839Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W et al (2015) FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:328–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bucerius J, Hyafil F, Verberne HJ, Slart RH, Lindner O, Sciagra R et al (2016) Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) on PET imaging of atherosclerosis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:780–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beaulieu S, Kinahan P, Tseng J, Dunnwald LK, Schubert EK, Pham P et al (2003) SUV varies with time after injection in (18)F-FDG PET of breast cancer: characterization and method to adjust for time differences. J Nucl Med 44:1044–1050Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stahl AR, Heusner TA, Hartung V, Nagarajah J, Bockisch A, Hahn S et al (2011) Time course of tumor SUV in 18F-FDG PET of breast cancer: presentation of a simple model using a single reference point for time corrections of tumor SUV. J Nucl Med 52:18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laffon E, de Clermont H, Marthan R (2011) A method of adjusting SUV for injection-acquisition time differences in 18F-FDG PET Imaging. Eur Radiol 21:2417–2424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE, Borsboom GJ, Eijkemans MJ, Vergouwe Y, Habbema JD (2001) Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 54:774–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuncheva LI (2007) A stability index for feature selection. In: Proceedings of the 25th IASTED international multi-conference conference artificial intelligence and applications 2007, Innsbruck, Austria, Feb 12–14, pp 390–395Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Toutouzas K, Koutagiar I, Benetos G, Aggeli C, Georgakopoulos A, Athanasiadis E et al (2017) Inflamed human carotid plaques evaluated by PET/CT exhibit increased temperature: insights from an in vivo study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 18:1236–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brili S, Oikonomou E, Antonopoulos AS, Pianou N, Georgakopoulos A, Koutagiar I et al (2018) 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomographic imaging detects aortic wall inflammation in patients with repaired coarctation of aorta. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 11:e007002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bucerius J, Mani V, Moncrieff C, Machac J, Fuster V, Farkouh ME et al (2014) Optimizing 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging of vessel wall inflammation—the impact of 18F-FDG circulation time, injected dose, uptake parameters, and fasting blood glucose levels. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:369–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheng G, Alavi A, Lim E, Werner TJ, Del Bello CV, Akers SR (2013) Dynamic changes of FDG uptake and clearance in normal tissues. Mol Imaging Biol 15:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kinahan P, Fletcher J (2010) PET/CT standardized uptake values (SUVs) in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 31:496–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boellaard R (2009) Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):11S–20SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hagiwara K (2002) Review of particle properties. Phys Rev D 66:010001(R)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wong CY, Noujaim D, Fu HF, Huang WS, Cheng CY, Thie J et al (2009) Time sensitivity: a parameter reflecting tumor metabolic kinetics by variable dual-time F-18 FDG PET imaging. Mol Imaging Biol 11:283–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thie AJ (2004) Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med 45:1431–1434Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thie AJ, Hubner FK, Smith TG (2002) Optimizing imaging time for improved performance in oncology PET studies. Mol Imaging Biol 4:238–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van der Valk FM, Verweij SL, Zwinderman KA, Strang AC, Kaiser Y, Marquering HA et al (2016) Thresholds for arterial wall inflammation quantified by 18F-FDG PET imaging: implications for vascular interventional studies. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 9:1198–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pavlos P. Kafouris
    • 1
    • 2
  • Iosif P. Koutagiar
    • 3
  • Alexandros T. Georgakopoulos
    • 2
  • Nikoletta K. Pianou
    • 2
  • Marinos G. Metaxas
    • 2
  • George M. Spyrou
    • 4
  • Constantinos D. Anagnostopoulos
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Informatics and TelecommunicationsNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Experimental Surgery, Clinical and Translational Research CentreBiomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of AthensAthensGreece
  3. 3.First Department of CardiologyHippokration HospitalAthensGreece
  4. 4.Bioinformatics ERA ChairThe Cyprus Institute of Neurology and GeneticsNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations