Differential centiloid scale normalization techniques: comparison between hybrid PET/MRI and independently acquired MRI

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Ryo Yamakuni, Takenobu Murakami, Naoyuki Ukon, Takeyasu Kakamu, Wataru Toda, Kasumi Hattori, Hirofumi Sekino, Shiro Ishii, Kenji Fukushima, Hiroshi Matsuda, Yoshikazu Ugawa, Noritaka Wakasugi, Mitsunari Abe, Hiroshi Ito
{"title":"Differential centiloid scale normalization techniques: comparison between hybrid PET/MRI and independently acquired MRI","authors":"Ryo Yamakuni,&nbsp;Takenobu Murakami,&nbsp;Naoyuki Ukon,&nbsp;Takeyasu Kakamu,&nbsp;Wataru Toda,&nbsp;Kasumi Hattori,&nbsp;Hirofumi Sekino,&nbsp;Shiro Ishii,&nbsp;Kenji Fukushima,&nbsp;Hiroshi Matsuda,&nbsp;Yoshikazu Ugawa,&nbsp;Noritaka Wakasugi,&nbsp;Mitsunari Abe,&nbsp;Hiroshi Ito","doi":"10.1007/s12149-024-01955-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Centiloid (CL) scales play an important role in semiquantitative analyses of amyloid-β (Aβ) PET. CLs are derived from the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR), which needs Aβ positron emission tomography (PET) normalization processing. There are two methods to collect the T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) for normalization: (i) anatomical standardization using simultaneously acquired T1WI (PET/MRI), usually adapted to PET images from PET/MRI scanners, and (ii) T1WI from a separate examination (PET + MRI), usually adapted to PET images from PET/CT scanners. This study aimed to elucidate the correlations and differences in CLs between when using the above two T1WI collection methods.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>Among patients who underwent Aβ PET/MRI (using <sup>11</sup>C-Pittuberg compound B (<sup>11</sup>C-PiB) or <sup>18</sup>F‐flutemetamol (<sup>18</sup>F-FMM)) at our institution from 2015 to 2023, we selected 49 patients who also underwent other additional MRI examinations, including T1WI for anatomic standardization within 3 years. Thirty-one of them underwent <sup>11</sup>C‐PiB PET/MRI, and 18 participants underwent <sup>18</sup>F‐FMM PET/MRI. Twenty-five of them, additional MRI acquisition parameters were identical to simultaneous MRI during PET, and 24 participants were different. After normalization using PET/MRI or PET + MRI method each, SUVR was measured using the Global Alzheimer’s Association Initiative Network cerebral cortical and striatum Volume of Interest templates (VOI) and whole cerebellum VOI. Subsequently, CLs were calculated using the previously established equations for each Aβ PET tracer.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Between PET/MRI and PET + MRI methods, CLs correlated linearly in <sup>11</sup>C-PiB PET (<i>y</i> = 1.00<i>x</i> – 0.11, <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.999), <sup>18</sup>F-FMM PET (<i>y</i> = 0.97<i>x</i> – 0.12, 0.997), identical additional MRI acquisition (<i>y</i> = 1.00<i>x</i> + 0.33, 0.999), different acquisition (<i>y</i> = 0.98<i>x</i> – 0.43, 0.997), and entire study group (<i>y</i> = 1.00<i>x</i> – 0.24, 0.999). Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed no significant differences: <sup>11</sup>C-PiB (<i>p</i> = 0.49), <sup>18</sup>F-FMM (0.08), and whole PET (0.46). However, significant differences were identified in identical acquisition (<i>p</i> = 0.04) and different acquisition (<i>p</i> = 0.02). Bland–Altman analysis documented only a small bias between PET/MRI and PET + MRI in <sup>11</sup>C‐PiB PET, <sup>18</sup>F‐FMM PET, identical additional MRI acquisition, different acquisition, and whole PET (– 0.05, 0.67, – 0.30, 0.78, and 0.21, respectively).</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Anatomical standardizations using PET/MRI and using PET + MRI can lead to almost equivalent CL. The CL values obtained using PET/MRI or PET + MRI normalization methods are consistent and comparable in clinical studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8007,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Nuclear Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Nuclear Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12149-024-01955-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Centiloid (CL) scales play an important role in semiquantitative analyses of amyloid-β (Aβ) PET. CLs are derived from the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR), which needs Aβ positron emission tomography (PET) normalization processing. There are two methods to collect the T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) for normalization: (i) anatomical standardization using simultaneously acquired T1WI (PET/MRI), usually adapted to PET images from PET/MRI scanners, and (ii) T1WI from a separate examination (PET + MRI), usually adapted to PET images from PET/CT scanners. This study aimed to elucidate the correlations and differences in CLs between when using the above two T1WI collection methods.

Methods

Among patients who underwent Aβ PET/MRI (using 11C-Pittuberg compound B (11C-PiB) or 18F‐flutemetamol (18F-FMM)) at our institution from 2015 to 2023, we selected 49 patients who also underwent other additional MRI examinations, including T1WI for anatomic standardization within 3 years. Thirty-one of them underwent 11C‐PiB PET/MRI, and 18 participants underwent 18F‐FMM PET/MRI. Twenty-five of them, additional MRI acquisition parameters were identical to simultaneous MRI during PET, and 24 participants were different. After normalization using PET/MRI or PET + MRI method each, SUVR was measured using the Global Alzheimer’s Association Initiative Network cerebral cortical and striatum Volume of Interest templates (VOI) and whole cerebellum VOI. Subsequently, CLs were calculated using the previously established equations for each Aβ PET tracer.

Results

Between PET/MRI and PET + MRI methods, CLs correlated linearly in 11C-PiB PET (y = 1.00x – 0.11, R2 = 0.999), 18F-FMM PET (y = 0.97x – 0.12, 0.997), identical additional MRI acquisition (y = 1.00x + 0.33, 0.999), different acquisition (y = 0.98x – 0.43, 0.997), and entire study group (y = 1.00x – 0.24, 0.999). Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed no significant differences: 11C-PiB (p = 0.49), 18F-FMM (0.08), and whole PET (0.46). However, significant differences were identified in identical acquisition (p = 0.04) and different acquisition (p = 0.02). Bland–Altman analysis documented only a small bias between PET/MRI and PET + MRI in 11C‐PiB PET, 18F‐FMM PET, identical additional MRI acquisition, different acquisition, and whole PET (– 0.05, 0.67, – 0.30, 0.78, and 0.21, respectively).

Conclusions

Anatomical standardizations using PET/MRI and using PET + MRI can lead to almost equivalent CL. The CL values obtained using PET/MRI or PET + MRI normalization methods are consistent and comparable in clinical studies.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

不同中心鳞片归一化技术:混合 PET/MRI 与独立获取的 MRI 之间的比较。
目的:在淀粉样蛋白-β(Aβ)PET 的半定量分析中,Centiloid(CL)标度起着重要作用。CL来自标准化摄取值比值(SUVR),SUVR需要进行Aβ正电子发射断层扫描(PET)归一化处理。收集用于归一化的 T1 加权成像(T1WI)有两种方法:(i) 使用同时获得的 T1WI(PET/MRI)进行解剖标准化,通常适用于 PET/MRI 扫描仪的 PET 图像;(ii) 来自单独检查(PET + MRI)的 T1WI,通常适用于 PET/CT 扫描仪的 PET 图像。本研究旨在阐明使用上述两种T1WI采集方法时CL的相关性和差异:从2015年至2023年在我院接受Aβ PET/MRI(使用11C-Pittuberg化合物B(11C-PiB)或18F-氟替美托(18F-FMM))检查的患者中,我们选取了49名在3年内还接受了其他额外MRI检查(包括T1WI)以进行解剖标准化的患者。其中 31 人接受了 11C-PiB PET/MRI,18 人接受了 18F-FMM PET/MRI。其中 25 人的其他 MRI 采集参数与 PET 期间的同步 MRI 相同,24 人不同。在分别使用 PET/MRI 或 PET + MRI 方法进行归一化后,使用全球阿尔茨海默氏症协会倡议网络大脑皮层和纹状体感兴趣体积模板(VOI)以及整个小脑 VOI 测量 SUVR。随后,使用之前为每种 Aβ PET 示踪剂建立的公式计算 CL:在 PET/MRI 和 PET + MRI 方法之间,CLs 在 11C-PiB PET(y = 1.00x - 0.11,R2 = 0.999)、18F-FMM PET(y = 0.97x - 0.12,0.997)、相同的额外 MRI 采集(y = 1.00x + 0.33,0.999)、不同的采集(y = 0.98x - 0.43,0.997)和整个研究组(y = 1.00x - 0.24,0.999)中呈线性相关。Wilcoxon 符号秩检验显示无显著差异:11C-PiB (p = 0.49)、18F-FMM (0.08) 和整个 PET (0.46)。然而,相同采集(p = 0.04)和不同采集(p = 0.02)之间存在明显差异。Bland-Altman分析表明,在11C-PiB PET、18F-FMM PET、相同的额外MRI采集、不同的采集和整个PET中,PET/MRI和PET + MRI之间只有很小的偏差(分别为- 0.05、0.67、- 0.30、0.78和0.21):结论:使用 PET/MRI 和 PET + MRI 进行解剖标准化可获得几乎相同的 CL 值。在临床研究中,使用 PET/MRI 或 PET + MRI 归一化方法获得的 CL 值具有一致性和可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of Nuclear Medicine
Annals of Nuclear Medicine 医学-核医学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
111
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Nuclear Medicine is an official journal of the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine. It develops the appropriate application of radioactive substances and stable nuclides in the field of medicine. The journal promotes the exchange of ideas and information and research in nuclear medicine and includes the medical application of radionuclides and related subjects. It presents original articles, short communications, reviews and letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信