Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Original research

Oxygen-15 labeled CO₂, O₂, and CO PET in small animals: evaluation using a 3D-mode microPET scanner and impact of reconstruction algorithms

Authors: Genki Horitsugi, Tadashi Watabe, Yasukazu Kanai, Hayato Ikeda, Hiroki Kato, Sadahiro Naka, Mana Ishibashi, Keiko Matsunaga, Kayako Isohashi, Eku Shimosegawa, Jun Hatazawa

Published in: EJNMMI Research | Issue 1/2017

Abstract

Background

Positron emission tomography (PET) studies using ¹⁵O-labeled CO₂, O₂, and CO have been used in humans to evaluate cerebral blood flow (CBF), the cerebral oxygen extraction fraction (OEF), and the cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen (CMRO₂) and cerebral blood volume (CBV), respectively. In preclinical studies, however, PET studies using ¹⁵O-labeled gases are not widely performed because of the technical difficulties associated with handling labeled gases with a short half-life. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the scatter fraction using 3D-mode micro-PET for ¹⁵O-labeled gas studies and the influence of reconstruction algorithms on quantitative values.

Nine male SD rats were studied using the steady state inhalation method for ¹⁵O-labeled gases with arterial blood sampling. The resulting PET images were reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP), ordered-subset expectation maximization (OSEM) 2D, or OSEM 3D followed by maximum a posteriori (OSEM3D-MAP). The quantitative values for each brain region and each reconstruction method were calculated by applying different reconstruction methods.

Results

The quantitative values for the whole brain as calculated using FBP were 46.6 ± 12.5 mL/100 mL/min (CBF), 63.7 ± 7.2% (OEF), 5.72 ± 0.34 mL/100 mL/min (CMRO₂), and 5.66 ± 0.34 mL/100 mL (CBV), respectively. The CBF and CMRO₂ values were significantly higher when the OSEM2D and OSEM3D-MAP reconstruction methods were used, compared with FBP, whereas the OEF values were significantly lower when reconstructed using OSEM3D-MAP.

Conclusions

We evaluated the difference in quantitative values among the reconstruction algorithms using 3D-mode micro-PET. The iterative reconstruction method resulted in significantly higher quantitative values for CBF and CMRO₂, compared with the values calculated using the FBP reconstruction method.

Available only for authorised users

Yamauchi H, Higashi T, Kagawa S, Nishii R, Kudo T, Sugimoto K, et al. Is misery perfusion still a predictor of stroke in symptomatic major cerebral artery disease? Brain. 2012;135:2515–26. doi:10.1093/brain/aws131.CrossRefPubMed

Watabe T, Shimosegawa E, Watabe H, Kanai Y, Hanaoka K, Ueguchi T, et al. Quantitative evaluation of cerebral blood flow and oxygen metabolism in normal anesthetized rats: 15O-labeled gas inhalation PET with MRI Fusion. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:283–90. doi:10.2967/jnumed.112.109751.CrossRefPubMed

Hori Y, Hirano Y, Koshino K, Moriguchi T, Iguchi S, Yamamoto A, et al. Validity of using a 3-dimensional PET scanner during inhalation of 15O-labeled oxygen for quantitative assessment of regional metabolic rate of oxygen in man. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:5593–609. doi10.1088/0031-9155/59/18/5593.CrossRefPubMed

Ibaraki M, Sugawara S, Nakamura K, Kinoshita F, Kinoshita T. The effect of activity outside the field-of-view on image signal-to-noise ratio for 3D PET with (15)O. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:3061–72. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/10/011.CrossRefPubMed

Lasnon C, Dugue AE, Briand M, Blanc-Fournier C, Dutoit S, Louis MH, et al. NEMA NU 4-optimized reconstructions for therapy assessment in cancer research with the Inveon small animal PET/CT system. Mol Imaging Biol. 2015;17:403–12. doi:10.1007/s11307-014-0805-5.CrossRefPubMed

Chatziioannou A, Qi J, Moore A, Annala A, Nguyen K, Leahy R, et al. Comparison of 3-D maximum a posteriori and filtered backprojection algorithms for high-resolution animal imaging with microPET. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2000;19:507–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/42.870260.CrossRefPubMed

Ram Yu A, Kim JS, Kang JH, Moo S. Comparison of reconstruction methods and quantitative accuracy in Siemens Inveon PET scanner. J Instrum. 2015;10:P04001.CrossRef

Prasad R, Ratib O, Zaidi H. NEMA NU-04-based performance characteristics of the LabPET-8™ small animal PET scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:6649–64. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/20/009.CrossRefPubMed

Visser EP, Disselhorst JA, Brom M, Laverman P, Gotthardt M, Oyen WJ, et al. Spatial resolution and sensitivity of the Inveon small-animal PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:139–47. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.055152.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Inoue K, Moriya E, Suzuki T, Ohnuki Y, Sato T, Kitamura H, et al. The usefulness of fully three-dimensional OSEM algorithm on lymph node metastases from lung cancer with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:277–87. doi:10.1007/s12149-010-0462-y.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Disselhorst JA, Brom M, Laverman P, Slump CH, Boerman OC, Oyen WJ, et al. Image-quality assessment for several positron emitters using the NEMA NU 4-2008 standards in the Siemens Inveon small-animal PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:610–7. doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.068858.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ibaraki M, Miura S, Shimosegawa E, Sugawara S, Mizuta T, Ishikawa A, et al. Quantification of cerebral blood flow and oxygen metabolism with 3-dimensional PET and 15O: validation by comparison with 2-dimensional PET. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:50–9. doi:10.2967/jnumed.107.044008.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Magata Y, Temma T, Iida H, Ogawa M, Mukai T, Iida Y, et al. Development of injectable O-15 oxygen and estimation of rat OEF. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2003;23:671–6. doi:10.1097/01.WCB.0000066792.97069.B3.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Kobayashi M, Mori T, Kiyono Y, Tiwari VN, Maruyama R, Kawai K, et al. Cerebral oxygen metabolism of rats using injectable (15)O-oxygen with a steady-state method. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2012;32:33–40. doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2011.125.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Weber AW, Haubner R, Wolf B, Ziegler SI. Effect of different reconstruction algorithms on the dynamics and modeling parameters of 18F-Galacto-RGD in mice. 2007 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. 2007;6:4521–3. doi:10.1109/NSSMIC.2007.4437114.

16.

Suk J, Cheng JC, Shoghi K, Laforest R. Quantitative accuracy of MAP reconstruction for dynamic PET imaging in small animals. Med Phys. 2012;39:1029–41. doi:10.1118/1.3678489.CrossRef

17.

Watson CC, Newport D, Casey ME. A single scatter simulation technique for scatter correction in 3D PET. In: Grangeat P, Amans J-L, editors. Three-dimensional image reconstruction in radiology and nuclear medicine. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 1996;4:255–68. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8749-5_18.

18.

Watson CC. New, faster, image-based scatter correction for 3D PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2000;47:1587–94. https://doi.org/10.1109/23.873020.CrossRef

19.

Schiffer WK, Mirrione MM, Biegon A, Alexoff DL, Patel V, Dewey SL. Serial microPET measures of the metabolic reaction to a microdialysis probe implant. J Neurosci Methods. 2006;155:272–84. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.01.027.

20.

Ibaraki M, Shimosegawa E, Miura S, Takahashi K, Ito H, Kanno I, et al. PET measurements of CBF, OEF, and CMRO2 without arterial sampling in hyperacute ischemic stroke: method and error analysis. Ann Nucl Med. 2004;18:35–44.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Jiang TT, Videen TO, Grubb RL, Powers WJ, Derdeyn CP. Cerebellum as the normal reference for the detection of increased cerebral oxygen extraction. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2010;30:1767–76. doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2010.43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Kemp BJ, Kim C, Williams JJ, Ganin A, Lowe VJ. NEMA NU 2-2001 performance measurements of an LYSO-based PET/CT system in 2D and 3D acquisition modes. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1960–7.PubMed

23.

Mawlawi O, Podoloff DA, Kohlmyer S, Williams JJ, Stearns CW, Culp RF, et al. Performance characteristics of a newly developed PET/CT scanner using NEMA standards in 2D and 3D modes. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1734–42.PubMed

24.

Teräs M, Tolvanen T, Johansson JJ, Williams JJ, Knuuti J. Performance of the new generation of whole-body PET/CT scanners: Discovery STE and Discovery VCT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1683–92. doi:10.1007/s00259-007-0493-3.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Bao Q, Newport D, Chen M, Stout DB, Chatziioannou AF. Performance evaluation of the inveon dedicated PET preclinical tomograph based on the NEMA NU-4 standards. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:401–8. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.056374.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Konik A, Madsen MT, Sunderland JJ. GATE simulations of human and small animal PET for determination of scatter fraction as a function of object size. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2010;57:2558–63. doi:10.1109/TNS.2010.2065240.CrossRef

27.

Mannheim JG, Schmid AM, Pichler BJ. Influence of co-57 and CT transmission measurements on the quantification accuracy and partial volume effect of a small animal PET scanner. Mol Imaging Biol. 2017; doi:10.1007/s11307-017-1074-x.

28.

Frackowiak RS, Lenzi GL, Jones T, Heather JD. Quantitative measurement of regional cerebral blood flow and oxygen metabolism in man using 15O and positron emission tomography: theory, procedure, and normal values. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1980;4:727–36.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Riddell C, Carson RE, Carrasquillo JA, Libutti SK, Danforth DN, Whatley M, et al. Noise reduction in oncology FDG PET images by iterative reconstruction: a quantitative assessment. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1316–23.PubMed

30.

Kim HS, Lee BI, Han Kim J, Bom HS, Kim DY, Min JJ. Comparison of reconstruction methods in a small animal cardiac positron emission tomography study using a 18F-labeled myocardial agent, [18F] FPTP. Iran J Radiol. 2017;14(1):e26806. doi:10.5812/iranjradiol.26806.

31.

Bahri MA, Plenevaux A, Warnock G, Luxen A, Seret A. NEMA NU4-2008 image quality performance report for the microPET focus 120 and for various transmission and reconstruction methods. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1730–8. doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.063974.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Ito H, Kanno I, Kato C, Sasaki T, Ishii K, Ouchi Y, et al. Database of normal human cerebral blood flow, cerebral blood volume, cerebral oxygen extraction fraction and cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen measured by positron emission tomography with 15O-labelled carbon dioxide or water, carbon monoxide and oxygen: a multicentre study in Japan. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:635–43. doi:10.1007/s00259-003-1430-8.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Oxygen-15 labeled CO2, O2, and CO PET in small animals: evaluation using a 3D-mode microPET scanner and impact of reconstruction algorithms
Authors: Genki Horitsugi
Tadashi Watabe
Yasukazu Kanai
Hayato Ikeda
Hiroki Kato
Sadahiro Naka
Mana Ishibashi
Keiko Matsunaga
Kayako Isohashi
Eku Shimosegawa
Jun Hatazawa
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: EJNMMI Research / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2191-219X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-017-0335-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Oxygen-15 labeled CO₂, O₂, and CO PET in small animals: evaluation using a 3D-mode microPET scanner and impact of reconstruction algorithms

Abstract

Background

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Ra-223 SPECT for semi-quantitative analysis in comparison with Tc-99m HMDP SPECT: phantom study and initial clinical experience

Repeatability of quantitative parameters of 18F-fluoride PET/CT and biochemical tumour and specific bone remodelling markers in prostate cancer bone metastases

Comparison of four 11C-labeled PET ligands to quantify translocator protein 18 kDa (TSPO) in human brain: (R)-PK11195, PBR28, DPA-713, and ER176—based on recent publications that measured specific-to-non-displaceable ratios

Pharmacokinetic modeling of [11C]flumazenil kinetics in the rat brain

Motor impairment and compensation in a hemiparkinsonian rat model: correlation between dopamine depletion severity, cerebral metabolism and gait patterns

Blood perfusion in osteomyelitis studied with [15O]water PET in a juvenile porcine model