Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
EJNMMI Research
Published in: EJNMMI Research 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Positron Emission Tomography | Review

An update on the use of image-derived input functions for human PET studies: new hopes or old illusions?

Authors: Tommaso Volpi, Lucia Maccioni, Maria Colpo, Giulia Debiasi, Amedeo Capotosti, Tommaso Ciceri, Richard E. Carson, Christine DeLorenzo, Andreas Hahn, Gitte Moos Knudsen, Adriaan A. Lammertsma, Julie C. Price, Vesna Sossi, Guobao Wang, Paolo Zanotti-Fregonara, Alessandra Bertoldo, Mattia Veronese

Published in: EJNMMI Research | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The need for arterial blood data in quantitative PET research limits the wider usability of this imaging method in clinical research settings. Image-derived input function (IDIF) approaches have been proposed as a cost-effective and non-invasive alternative to gold-standard arterial sampling. However, this approach comes with its own limitations—partial volume effects and radiometabolite correction among the most important—and varying rates of success, and the use of IDIF for brain PET has been particularly troublesome.

Main body

This paper summarizes the limitations of IDIF methods for quantitative PET imaging and discusses some of the advances that may make IDIF extraction more reliable. The introduction of automated pipelines (both commercial and open-source) for clinical PET scanners is discussed as a way to improve the reliability of IDIF approaches and their utility for quantitative purposes. Survey data gathered from the PET community are then presented to understand whether the field’s opinion of the usefulness and validity of IDIF is improving. Finally, as the introduction of next-generation PET scanners with long axial fields of view, ultra-high sensitivity, and improved spatial and temporal resolution, has also brought IDIF methods back into the spotlight, a discussion of the possibilities offered by these state-of-the-art scanners—inclusion of large vessels, less partial volume in small vessels, better description of the full IDIF kinetics, whole-body modeling of radiometabolite production—is included, providing a pathway for future use of IDIF.

Conclusion

Improvements in PET scanner technology and software for automated IDIF extraction may allow to solve some of the major limitations associated with IDIF, such as partial volume effects and poor temporal sampling, with the exciting potential for accurate estimation of single kinetic rates. Nevertheless, until individualized radiometabolite correction can be performed effectively, IDIF approaches remain confined at best to a few tracers.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Innis RB, Cunningham VJ, Delforge J, et al. Consensus nomenclature for in vivo imaging of reversibly binding radioligands. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2007;27(9):1533–9.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Finnema SJ, Nabulsi NB, Eid T, et al. Imaging synaptic density in the living human brain. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(348):348ra96.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zanotti-Fregonara P, Chen K, Liow JS, Fujita M, Innis RB. Image-derived input function for brain PET studies: many challenges and few opportunities. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2011;31(10):1986–98.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Henriksen AC, Lonsdale MN, Fuglø D, Kondziella D, Nersesjan V, Marner L. Non-invasive quantification of cerebral glucose metabolism using Gjedde-Patlak plot and image-derived input function from the aorta. Neuroimage. 2022;253:119079.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Cobelli C, Carson ER. Introduction to modeling in physiology and medicine. 2nd ed. London: Elsevier/Academic Press; 2019. p. 370.
6.
Chen K, Bandy D, Reiman E, et al. Noninvasive quantification of the cerebral metabolic rate for glucose using positron emission tomography, 18 F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose, the Patlak method, and an image-derived input function. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1998;18(7):716–23.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Takikawa S, Dhawan V, Spetsieris P, et al. Noninvasive quantitative fluorodeoxyglucose PET studies with an estimated input function derived from a population-based arterial blood curve. Radiology. 1993;188(1):131–6.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Ogden RT, Zanderigo F, Choy S, Mann JJ, Parsey RV. Simultaneous estimation of input functions: an empirical study. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2010;30(4):816–26.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Turgeon V, Kertzscher G, Carroll L, Hopewell R, Massarweh G, Enger SA. Characterization of scintillating fibers for use as positron detector in positron emission tomography. Phys Med. 2019;65:114–20.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Iida H, Miura S, Shoji Y, Ogawa T, Kado H, Narita Y, et al. Noninvasive quantitation of cerebral blood flow using oxygen-15-water and a dual-PET system. J Nucl Med. 1998;39(10):1789–98.PubMed
11.
Lammertsma AA, Hume SP. Simplified reference tissue model for PET receptor studies. Neuroimage. 1996;4(3):153–8.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Naganawa M, Kimura Y, Ishii K, Oda K, Ishiwata K, Matani A. Extraction of a plasma time-activity curve from dynamic brain PET images based on independent component analysis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2005;52(2):201–10.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Kuttner S, Wickstrøm KK, Lubberink M, Tolf A, Burman J, Sundset R, et al. Cerebral blood flow measurements with 15 O-water PET using a non-invasive machine-learning-derived arterial input function. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2021;41(9):2229–41.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
15.
Hu J, Panin V, Smith AM, et al. Design and implementation of automated clinical whole body parametric PET with continuous bed motion. IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci. 2020;4(6):696–707.CrossRef
16.
17.
van der Weerdt AP, Klein LJ, Boellaard R, Visser CA, Visser FC, Lammertsma AA. Image-derived input functions for determination of MRGlu in cardiac (18)F-FDG PET scans. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(11):1622–9.PubMed
18.
Schroeder T, Vidal Melo MF, Musch G, Harris RS, Venegas JG, Winkler T. Image-derived input function for assessment of 18F-FDG uptake by the inflamed lung. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(11):1889–96.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Wang G, Corwin MT, Olson KA, Badawi RD, Sarkar S. Dynamic PET of human liver inflammation: impact of kinetic modeling with optimization-derived dual-blood input function. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(15):155004.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Schiepers C, Hoh CK, Nuyts J, et al. 1–11 C-acetate kinetics of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(2):206–15.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), Sciagrà R, Lubberink M, et al. EANM procedural guidelines for PET/CT quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(4):1040–69.CrossRef
22.
Rousset O, Rahmim A, Alavi A, Zaidi H. Partial volume correction strategies in PET. PET Clin. 2007;2(2):235–49.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Fung EK, Carson RE. Cerebral blood flow with [15O]water PET studies using an image-derived input function and MR-defined carotid centerlines. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58(6):1903–23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Galovic M, Erlandsson K, Fryer TD, et al. Validation of a combined image derived input function and venous sampling approach for the quantification of [18F]GE-179 PET binding in the brain. Neuroimage. 2021;237:118194.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Hahn A, Nics L, Baldinger P, et al. Combining image-derived and venous input functions enables quantification of serotonin-1A receptors with [carbonyl- 11C]WAY-100635 independent of arterial sampling. Neuroimage. 2012;62(1):199–206.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Lee JH, Veronese M, Liow JS, et al. Region and voxel-based quantification in human brain of [18F]LSN3316612, a radioligand for O-GlcNAcase. EJNMMI Res. 2021;11(1):35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Zanotti-Fregonara P, Liow JS, Comtat C, et al. Image-derived input function in PET brain studies: blood-based methods are resistant to motion artifacts. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33(9):982–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Lammertsma AA, Bench CJ, Price GW, et al. Measurement of cerebral monoamine oxidase B activity using L-[11C]Deprenyl and dynamic positron emission tomography. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1991;11(4):545–56.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Gallezot JD, Lu Y, Naganawa M, Carson RE. Parametric imaging with PET and SPECT. IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci. 2020;4(1):1–23.CrossRef
30.
Rahmim A, Lodge MA, Karakatsanis NA, et al. Dynamic whole-body PET imaging: principles, potentials and applications. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(2):501–18.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Häggström I, Schmidtlein CR, Karlsson M, Larsson A. Compartment modeling of dynamic brain PET—The impact of scatter corrections on parameter errors. Med Phys. 2014;41(11):111907.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Boellaard R, van Lingen A, Lammertsma AA. Experimental and clinical evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) in dynamic PET: quantitative characteristics and effects on kinetic modeling. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(5):808–17.PubMed
33.
Feng T, Tsui BMW, Li X, et al. Image-derived and arterial blood sampled input functions for quantitative PET imaging of the angiotensin II subtype 1 receptor in the kidney. Med Phys. 2015;42(11):6736–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Cheng JCK, Bevington CWJ, Sossi V. HYPR4D kernel method on TOF PET data with validations including image-derived input function. EJNMMI Phys. 2022;9(1):78.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Li X, Feng D, Chen K. Optimal image sampling schedule for both image-derived input and output functions in PET cardiac studies. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2000;19(3):233–42.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Zanotti-Fregonara P, Maroy R, Comtat C, et al. Comparison of 3 methods of automated internal carotid segmentation in human brain PET studies: application to the estimation of arterial input function. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(3):461–7.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Sundar LK, Muzik O, Rischka L, et al. Towards quantitative [18F]FDG-PET/MRI of the brain: automated MR-driven calculation of an image-derived input function for the non-invasive determination of cerebral glucose metabolic rates. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2019;39(8):1516–30.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Slomka PJ, Alexanderson E, Jácome R, Jiménez M, Romero E, Meave A, et al. Comparison of clinical tools for measurements of regional stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 13 N-ammonia PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(2):171–81.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Nesterov SV, Han C, Mäki M, et al. Myocardial perfusion quantitation with 15O-labelled water PET: high reproducibility of the new cardiac analysis software (CarimasTM). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36(10):1594–602.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Harms HJ, Knaapen P, De Haan S, Halbmeijer R, Lammertsma AA, Lubberink M. Automatic generation of absolute myocardial blood flow images using [15O]H2O and a clinical PET/CT scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(5):930–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Klein R, Renaud JM, Ziadi MC, et al. Intra- and interoperator repeatability of myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve measurements using rubidium-82 pet and a highly automated analysis program. J Nucl Cardiol. 2010;17(4):600–16.PubMedCrossRef
42.
deKemp RA, Declerck J, Klein R, et al. Multisoftware reproducibility study of stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 3D dynamic PET/CT and a 1-tissue-compartment model of 82 Rb kinetics. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(4):571–7.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Dunet V, Klein R, Allenbach G, Renaud J, deKemp RA, Prior JO. Myocardial blood flow quantification by Rb-82 cardiac PET/CT: a detailed reproducibility study between two semiautomatic analysis programs. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23(3):499–510.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Murthy VL, Lee BC, Sitek A, et al. Comparison and prognostic validation of multiple methods of quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82 Rb PET. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(12):1952–8.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Pan L, Sachpekidis C. Kinetic modeling and parametric imaging with dynamic PET for oncological applications: general considerations, current clinical applications, and future perspectives. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(1):21–39.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Kotasidis FA, Tsoumpas C, Rahmim A. Advanced kinetic modelling strategies: towards adoption in clinical PET imaging. Clin Transl Imaging. 2014;2(3):219–37.CrossRef
47.
Ye Q, Zeng H, Zhao Y, Zhang W, Dong Y, Fan W, et al. Framing protocol optimization in oncological Patlak parametric imaging with uKinetics. EJNMMI Phys. 2023;10(1):54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Dias AH, Hansen AK, Munk OL, Gormsen LC. Normal values for 18F-FDG uptake in organs and tissues measured by dynamic whole body multiparametric FDG PET in 126 patients. EJNMMI Res. 2022;12(1):15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
Naganawa M, Gallezot JD, Shah V, et al. Assessment of population-based input functions for Patlak imaging of whole body dynamic 18F-FDG PET. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7(1):67.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Dias AH, Jochumsen MR, Zacho HD, Munk OL, Gormsen LC. Multiparametric dynamic whole-body PSMA PET/CT using [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [18F]PSMA-1007. EJNMMI Res. 2023;13(1):31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Reed MB, Godbersen GM, Vraka C, et al. Comparison of cardiac image-derived input functions for quantitative whole body [18F]FDG imaging with arterial blood sampling. Front Physiol. 2023;14:1074052.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Lyoo CH, Zanotti-Fregonara P, Zoghbi SS, et al. Image-derived input function derived from a supervised clustering algorithm: methodology and validation in a clinical protocol using [11C](R)-rolipram. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(2):e89101.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
Silvestri E, Volpi T, Bettinelli A, et al. Image-derived input function in brain [18 F]FDG PET data: which alternatives to the carotid siphons? In: 2022 44th Annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine & biology society (EMBC). Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom: IEEE; 2022. p. 243–6.
54.
55.
56.
Krejza J, Arkuszewski M, Kasner SE, et al. Carotid artery diameter in men and women and the relation to body and neck size. Stroke. 2006;37(4):1103–5.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Liptrot M, Adams KH, Martiny L, et al. Cluster analysis in kinetic modelling of the brain: a noninvasive alternative to arterial sampling. Neuroimage. 2004;21(2):483–93.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Chen K, Chen X, Renaut R, et al. Characterization of the image-derived carotid artery input function using independent component analysis for the quantitation of [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography images. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52(23):7055–71.PubMedCrossRef
59.
van Der Weijden CWJ, Mossel P, Bartels AL, et al. Non-invasive kinetic modelling approaches for quantitative analysis of brain PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50(6):1636–50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
60.
Dassanayake P, Cui L, Finger E, et al. caliPER: a software for blood-free parametric Patlak mapping using PET/MRI input function. Neuroimage. 2022;256:119261.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Khalighi MM, Deller TW, Fan AP, et al. Image-derived input function estimation on a TOF-enabled PET/MR for cerebral blood flow mapping. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2018;38(1):126–35.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Vestergaard MB, Calvo OP, Hansen AE, et al. Validation of kinetic modeling of [15O]H2O PET using an image derived input function on hybrid PET/MRI. Neuroimage. 2021;233:117950.PubMedCrossRef
63.
64.
Prenosil GA, Sari H, Fürstner M, et al. Performance characteristics of the biograph vision quadra PET/CT system with a long axial field of view using the NEMA NU 2–2018 standard. J Nucl Med. 2022;63(3):476–84.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Carson RE, Berg E, Badawi R, et al. Design of the NeuroEXPLORER, a next-generation ultra-high performance human brain PET imager. J Nucl Med. 2021;62(suppl.1):1120.
66.
67.
Gaudin E, Toussaint M, Thibaudeau C, Paille M, Fontaine R, Lecomte R. Performance simulation of an ultrahigh resolution brain PET scanner using 1.2-mm pixel detectors. IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci. 2019;3(3):334–42.PubMedCrossRef
68.
69.
70.
Sari H, Mingels C, Alberts I, et al. First results on kinetic modelling and parametric imaging of dynamic 18F-FDG datasets from a long axial FOV PET scanner in oncological patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(6):1997–2009.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Merlin T, Visvikis D, Fernandez P, Lamare F. Dynamic PET image reconstruction integrating temporal regularization associated with respiratory motion correction for applications in oncology. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(4):045012.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Feng T, Zhao Y, Shi H, et al. The effects of delay on the input function for early dynamics in total body parametric imaging. In: 2019 IEEE Nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference (NSS/MIC). Manchester, United Kingdom: IEEE; 2019, p. 1–6.
73.
74.
75.
Feng T, Li H, Zhao Y, et al. Development and validation of an accurate input function from carotid arteries using the uEXPLORER. In: 2020 IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference (NSS/MIC). Boston, MA, USA: IEEE; 2020. p. 1–4.
76.
Wang G. High temporal-resolution dynamic PET image reconstruction using a new spatiotemporal kernel method. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2019;38(3):664–74.CrossRef
77.
Wang G, Spencer B, Sarkar S, et al. Quantification of glucose transport using high temporal resolution dynamic PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(suppl.1):521.
78.
Peters SA. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling and simulations: principles, methods, and applications in the pharmaceutical industry. Hoboken: Wiley; 2012. p. 37.CrossRef
79.
Gallezot JD, Naganawa M, Carson RE. Evaluation of compartment models to quantify plasma parent fraction data in PET studies. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(soppl.1):501.
80.
Slart RHJA, Tsoumpas C, Glaudemans AWJM, et al. Long axial field of view PET scanners: a road map to implementation and new possibilities. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(13):4236–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
81.
Feng DD, Chen K, Wen L. Noninvasive input function acquisition and simultaneous estimations with physiological parameters for PET quantification: a brief review. IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci. 2020;4(6):676–83.CrossRef
82.
83.
Chen R, Yang X, Yu X, et al. Tumor-to-blood ratio for assessment of fibroblast activation protein receptor density in pancreatic cancer using [68Ga]Ga-FAPI-04. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50(3):929–36.PubMedCrossRef
84.
Metadata
Title
An update on the use of image-derived input functions for human PET studies: new hopes or old illusions?
Authors
Tommaso Volpi
Lucia Maccioni
Maria Colpo
Giulia Debiasi
Amedeo Capotosti
Tommaso Ciceri
Richard E. Carson
Christine DeLorenzo
Andreas Hahn
Gitte Moos Knudsen
Adriaan A. Lammertsma
Julie C. Price
Vesna Sossi
Guobao Wang
Paolo Zanotti-Fregonara
Alessandra Bertoldo
Mattia Veronese
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
EJNMMI Research / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 2191-219X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-023-01050-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

EJNMMI Research 1/2023 Go to the issue

Correction

Correction: [18F]ROStrace detects oxidative stress in vivo and predicts progression of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in APP/PS1 mice

Original research

Head-to-head comparison of relative cerebral blood flow derived from dynamic [18F]florbetapir and [18F]flortaucipir PET in subjects with subjective cognitive decline

Original Research

Development of a minimally invasive simultaneous estimation method for quantifying translocator protein binding with [18F]FEPPA positron emission tomography

Original research

Sensitivity of an AI method for [18F]FDG PET/CT outcome prediction of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients to image reconstruction protocols

Original research

Dispersion-corrected extracorporeal arterial input functions in PET studies of mice: a comparison to intracorporeal microprobe measurements

Original research

Value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT radiomics combined with clinical variables in the differential diagnosis of malignant and benign vertebral compression fractures