| Title |
Comparison of three-parameter kinetic model analysis to standard Patlak’s analysis in 18F-FDG PET imaging of lung cancer patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
EJNMMI Research, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13550-018-0369-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. Laffon, M. L. Calcagni, G. Galli, A. Giordano, A. Capotosti, R. Marthan, L. Indovina |
| Abstract |
Patlak's graphical analysis can provide tracer net influx constant (Ki) with limitation of assuming irreversible tracer trapping, that is, release rate constant (kb) set to zero. We compared linear Patlak's analysis to non-linear three-compartment three-parameter kinetic model analysis (3P-KMA) providing Ki, kb, and fraction of free 18F-FDG in blood and interstitial volume (Vb). Dynamic PET data of 21 lung cancer patients were retrospectively analyzed, yielding for each patient an 18F-FDG input function (IF) and a tissue time-activity curve. The former was fitted with a three-exponentially decreasing function, and the latter was fitted with an analytical formula involving the fitted IF data (11 data points, ranging 7.5-57.5 min post-injection). Bland-Altman analysis was used for Ki comparison between Patlak's analysis and 3P-KMA. Additionally, a three-compartment five-parameter KMA (5P-KMA) was implemented for comparison with Patlak's analysis and 3P-KMA. We found that 3P-KMA Ki was significantly greater than Patlak's Ki over the whole patient series, + 6.0% on average, with limits of agreement of ± 17.1% (95% confidence). Excluding 8 out of 21 patients with kb > 0 deleted this difference. A strong correlation was found between Ki ratio (=3P-KMA/Patlak) and kb (R = 0.801; P < 0.001). No significant difference in Ki was found between 3P-KMA versus 5P-KMA, and between 5P-KMA versus Patlak's analysis, with limits of agreement of ± 23.0 and ± 31.7% (95% confidence), respectively. Comparison between 3P-KMA and Patlak's analysis significantly showed that the latter underestimates Ki because it arbitrarily set kb to zero: the greater the kb value, the greater the Ki underestimation. This underestimation was not revealed when comparing 5P-KMA and Patlak's analysis. We suggest that further studies are warranted to investigate the 3P-KMA efficiency in various tissues showing greater 18F-FDG trapping reversibility than lung cancer lesions. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 50% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 25% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 50% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,504,780
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from EJNMMI Research
#261
of 564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,602
of 330,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EJNMMI Research
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 564 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,044 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.