{"title":"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。","authors":"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","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":"{\"title\":\"Differential centiloid scale normalization techniques: comparison between hybrid PET/MRI and independently acquired MRI\",\"authors\":\"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\",\"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}","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}
Differential centiloid scale normalization techniques: comparison between hybrid PET/MRI and independently acquired MRI
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
