Display options
Cite
Harms HJ, de Haan S, Knaapen P, et al. Quantification of [(11)C]-meta-hydroxyephedrine uptake in human myocardium. EJNMMI Res. 2014;4(1):52doi: 10.1186/s13550-014-0052-4.
Harms, H. J., de Haan, S., Knaapen, P., Allaart, C. P., Rijnierse, M. T., Schuit, R. C., Windhorst, A. D., Lammertsma, A. A., Huisman, M. C., & Lubberink, M. (2014). Quantification of [(11)C]-meta-hydroxyephedrine uptake in human myocardium. EJNMMI research, 4(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-014-0052-4
Harms, Hendrik J, et al. "Quantification of [(11)C]-meta-hydroxyephedrine uptake in human myocardium." EJNMMI research vol. 4,1 (2014): 52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-014-0052-4
Harms HJ, de Haan S, Knaapen P, Allaart CP, Rijnierse MT, Schuit RC, Windhorst AD, Lammertsma AA, Huisman MC, Lubberink M. Quantification of [(11)C]-meta-hydroxyephedrine uptake in human myocardium. EJNMMI Res. 2014 Dec;4(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s13550-014-0052-4. Epub 2014 Sep 26. PMID: 26116116; PMCID: PMC4452641.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

EJNMMI Res. 2014 Dec;4(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s13550-014-0052-4. Epub 2014 Sep 26.

Quantification of [(11)C]-meta-hydroxyephedrine uptake in human myocardium.

EJNMMI research

Hendrik J Harms, Stefan de Haan, Paul Knaapen, Cornelis P Allaart, Mischa T Rijnierse, Robert C Schuit, Albert D Windhorst, Adriaan A Lammertsma, Marc C Huisman, Mark Lubberink

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, [email protected].

PMID: 26116116 PMCID: PMC4452641 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-014-0052-4

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to determine the optimal tracer kinetic model for [(11)C]-meta-hydroxyephedrine ([(11)C]HED) and to evaluate the performance of several simplified methods.

METHODS: Thirty patients underwent dynamic 60-min [(11)C]HED scans with online arterial blood sampling. Single-tissue and both reversible and irreversible two-tissue models were fitted to the data using the metabolite-corrected arterial input function. For each model, reliable fits were defined as those yielding outcome parameters with a coefficient of variation (CoV) <25%. The optimal model was determined using Akaike and Schwarz criteria and the F-test, together with the number of reliable fits. Simulations were performed to study accuracy and precision of each model. Finally, quantitative results obtained using a population-averaged metabolite correction were evaluated, and simplified retention index (RI) and standardized uptake value (SUV) results were compared with quantitative volume of distribution (V T) data.

RESULTS: The reversible two-tissue model was preferred in 75.8% of all segments, based on the Akaike information criterion. However, V T derived using the single-tissue model correlated highly with that of the two-tissue model (r (2) = 0.94, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.96) and showed higher precision (CoV of 24.6% and 89.2% for single- and two-tissue models, respectively, at 20% noise). In addition, the single-tissue model yielded reliable fits in 94.6% of all segments as compared with 77.1% for the reversible two-tissue model. A population-averaged metabolite correction could not be used in approximately 20% of the patients because of large biases in V T. RI and SUV can provide misleading results because of non-linear relationships with V T.

CONCLUSIONS: Although the reversible two-tissue model provided the best fits, the single-tissue model was more robust and results obtained were similar. Therefore, the single-tissue model was preferred. RI showed a non-linear correlation with V T, and therefore, care has to be taken when using RI as a quantitative measure.

References

  1. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2002 Feb;18(1):539-42 - PubMed
  2. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013 Oct;20(5):845-56 - PubMed
  3. Am J Physiol. 1981 Aug;241(2):H194-201 - PubMed
  4. Heart. 1999 Mar;81(3):262-70 - PubMed
  5. Am Heart J. 1998 Nov;136(5):859-67 - PubMed
  6. J Nucl Med. 1993 Oct;34(10 ):1770-7 - PubMed
  7. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Jun 10;51(23):2266-75 - PubMed
  8. J Nucl Med. 2005 Aug;46(8):1368-74 - PubMed
  9. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2007 Sep;27(9):1533-9 - PubMed
  10. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010 Jan-Feb;17 (1):85-96 - PubMed
  11. Circulation. 1998 Sep 8;98 (10 ):961-8 - PubMed
  12. Circulation. 1989 Mar;79(3):634-44 - PubMed
  13. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 Nov 1;22(5):1425-32 - PubMed
  14. J Nucl Med. 1990 Aug;31(8):1352-7 - PubMed
  15. J Nucl Med. 2013 Sep;54(9):1645-52 - PubMed
  16. Eur Heart J. 2004 Apr;25(7):551-7 - PubMed
  17. J Nucl Med. 2010 Apr;51(4):575-80 - PubMed
  18. Nucl Med Biol. 1993 Nov;20(8):939-44 - PubMed
  19. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001 Jan;28(1):81-9 - PubMed
  20. Circulation. 1990 May;81(5):1606-21 - PubMed
  21. Circulation. 2000 Feb 8;101(5):516-23 - PubMed
  22. Circulation. 1990 Aug;82(2):457-64 - PubMed
  23. J Nucl Med. 2010 Nov;51(11):1684-90 - PubMed
  24. Circ Res. 1998 Jan 9-23;82(1):57-62 - PubMed
  25. Circulation. 2000 Jun 6;101(22):2579-85 - PubMed
  26. J Nucl Med. 1990 Aug;31(8):1328-34 - PubMed
  27. J Nucl Med. 1981 Feb;22(2):129-32 - PubMed
  28. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 May 18;55(20):2212-21 - PubMed
  29. J Nucl Med. 2007 Mar;48(3):471-80 - PubMed
  30. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Jun 15;55(24):2769-77 - PubMed
  31. Circulation. 1987 Apr;75(4):877-87 - PubMed
  32. J Nucl Med. 2010 Aug;51(8):1241-9 - PubMed
  33. J Nucl Med. 2001 Nov;42(11):1622-9 - PubMed
  34. J Nucl Med. 1999 Jun;40(6):904-10 - PubMed
  35. Neuroimage. 1998 Nov;8(4):426-40 - PubMed
  36. Clin Phys Physiol Meas. 1992 Feb;13(1):1-20 - PubMed
  37. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Feb;34(2):197-205 - PubMed
  38. J Nucl Med. 2007 Oct;48(10 ):1733-40 - PubMed
  39. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006 Aug;33(8):866-70 - PubMed
  40. J Nucl Med. 1980 Apr;21(4):349-53 - PubMed
  41. Circulation. 1987 Aug;76(2):383-93 - PubMed

Publication Types