I TUOI DATI
I TUOI ORDINI
N. prodotti: 0
Totale ordine: € 0,00
I TUOI ABBONAMENTI
I TUOI ARTICOLI
THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING
Rivista di Medicina Nucleare e Imaging Molecolare
A Journal on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Affiliated to the and to the International Research Group of Immunoscintigraphy
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,413
The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2014 Dec 05
Are the simplified methods to estimate Ki in 18F-FDG PET studies feasible in clinical routine? Comparison between three simplified methods
Calcagni M. L., Indovina L., Di Franco D., Rufini V., Leccisotti L., Giordano A, Galli G. ✉
Division of Medical Physics, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
PURPOSE: To verify the feasibility, in clinical practice, of three simplified methods (Hunter, Sadato and another one proposed by our group) to calculate Ki and MRglu of 18F-FDG, comparing the results with those derived by the linear regression (LR) method (considered the golden standard), and also with SUV.
METHODS: Forty-five patients (32males, mean age 69±9years) with non-small-cell-lung cancer prospectively enrolled, underwent dynamic 18F-FDG PET-CT over the thorax. Ki was estimated as follows: from a static acquisition and performing one venous blood sampling using the Hunter method; multiplying the SUV for the average plasma clearance rate (kP(T)) and for the initial distribution volume (V0bw) without performing any blood sampling using the Sadato method; multiplying the SUV for a factor F (which encompasses the mean value of haematocrit and plasma volume, both according to patient’s sex) without performing any blood sample using ours method. Wilcoxon signed rank and coefficient of determination (R2) were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between the Ki and MRglu estimated by all three simplified methods and the Ki and MRglu estimated by LR. The highest p values and the lower values of mean differences were observed with our method compared with LR: Ki=0.0392±0.0178 min1 vs Ki=0.0392±0.0202 min1 (p=0.897, MD=0.0001 min1), respectively; MRglu= 4.47±2.23 ml/min/100g vs MRglu= 4.43±2.38 ml/min/100g (p=0.839, MD= -0.0373 ml/min/100g), respectively. The highest correlation was observed between the Ki estimated by both Hunter and our methods and the Ki estimated by LR: R2=0.87, R2=0.86, respectively. A good correlation (R2=0.83) was observed between SUV and Ki estimated by LR.
CONCLUSIONS: These three simplified methods represent a valid alternative to the more invasive and complex full kinetic analysis. Their “pros” are: the non-invasiveness, the feasibility, the good correlation with the golden standard; their “cons” is that full kinetic analysis provides highest accuracy in Ki determination. Therefore, in clinical oncology routine, the nuclear physicians can choose among different simplified methods especially for monitoring the response to treatment, for tumour grading, and for prognostic stratification, letting the full kinetic analysis to specific centre/studies.